Ginsburg taking a closer look at the evidence in the Global Warming Case.
Posted on 11/29/2006 1:50:16 PM PST by mathprof
Frustrated by Bush administration inaction on global warming, states and environmentalists urged the Supreme Court Wednesday to declare greenhouse gases to be air pollutants that the government must regulate.
The court's first case on the politically charged topic showed an apparent split between its liberal and conservative justices, with Anthony Kennedy potentially the decisive vote in determining whether the administration must abandon its refusal to treat carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as air pollutants that imperil public health.
Justice Samuel Alito, who with Chief Justice John Roberts seemed most skeptical of the states' position, said that even in the best of circumstances, the reduction in greenhouse gases would be relatively small.
Justice David Souter indicated that every little bit would help. ''They don't have to show that it will stop global warming. Their point is that will reduce the degree of global warming and likely reduce the degree of loss,'' he said.[snip]
Milkey pointed out that even small reductions would be meaningful, pointing out that very small rises in the sea level would inundate significant portions of low-lying coastal land.
On this issue, in particular, Kennedy may well hold the key, lawyers on both sides of the case said. ''Justice Kennedy is the one everyone is focusing on and rightly so,'' said Ann Klee, a former EPA general counsel in the Bush administration.
Kennedy himself raised a 100-year-old case on this topic in which the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia could sue Tennessee copper companies because their sulfurous emissions were destroying Georgia forests. ''That seems to me your best case,'' Kennedy told Milkey.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle
unreal. one unelected judge will approve the Kyoto treaty, or deny it.
Ginsburg taking a closer look at the evidence in the Global Warming Case.
And while Rome burns (in self flagellating stupidity) the barbarians gather at the gates, salivating over future conquest.
Can somebody bring a lawsuit to the USSC to shut down all the Lawyers whose hot air arguments are ALSO contributing to global warming? Shut the hell up, unless the Third World is going to stop modernizing, as their pollution is a greater threat than the already over-regulated emissions in the U.S.
Help me figure out how global warming is a constitutional issue that has to be resolved by the scotus...
If the court rules that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant, does that mean I can no longer exhale?
read the article comments on the 10,000 EPA employees petitioning the SCOTUS to rule in favor of the environmentalists - they want to regulate every aspect of life that involves carbon dioxide emissions.
Do they mean that what every mammal on earth EXHALES is now an AIR POLLUTANT?
Other than the effluvia that wafts out of Teddy Kennedy, that's preposterous.
because the clean air act is a law - and once it becomes a law, the courts have supreme jurisdiction to decide.
my sense is - we lose this decision 5-4. Kennedy has generally been moving to the liberal side.
we fell one SCOTUS appointment short of making a significant change in this country, and now with the Dems controlling the US senate - that opportunity is gone for a generation.
Let's file a lawsuit demanding that big cities such as New York control and pay for the criminals that they create and unleash on the rest of America.
If science can't prove it, then legislate it. Next the Supreme Court will have to weigh in on how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.
is methane considered a pollutant, cause if it is, no more farting allowed either....
Of course not. You'll just be taxed for breathing. Most likely per household. This will keep people from having more than one child.
Will anyone check in with real scientists on this case? Somehow, I doubt it. Global Warming - OK, but when will my winter heating bills reflect that warming? I'm waiting...
what this case again shows - is the the left can advance their agenda through the courts alone.
Kennedy wants to be admired and lionized on the cocktail circuit.
That means he must vote in favor of the environmentalists, because global warming is extremely chic just now.
why do 9 lawyers care anything about the opinions of science? or the law for that matter? read Souter's comments above - just because he "feels" it would help, he'll vote to mandate the entire US economy be inundated with regulations on every aspect of life involving transportation and energy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.