An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Global Warming Goes to Court
The Decider and his environmentally-unfriendly minions have been in denial about global warming from the jump.
Now the most powerful presidential administration in modern times — the one that says it has the power to do whatever it wants, Congress and courts be damned — will argue in a Supreme Court showdown with 12 states that it does not have the power to slow global warming by limiting the emission of harmful gases.
A reading of the Clean Air Act leaves no room for doubt: The federal government has that obligation. It just hasn’t wanted to fulfill it.
More here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
8 Responses to “Global Warming Goes to Court”
I just want to offer this link, the NYS Attorney General’s press release on its notice of intent to sue EPA. At the bottom of the page there are a few links that lay out both the legal and scientific case for regulating CO2. If you want to get a general idea of the legal issues, the “Attachment to letter” link is a good place to start.
Sometimes there are legal issues that parallel a policy issue. Even if the Federal Government wanted to allow States to take initiative on global warming the law may not allow it. Hopefully this will go on the list of bi-partisan issues that are relatively easy to fix.
Not only does the Decider not want to enforce the Clean Air Act, he’s suing states that are trying to move forward on their own. California is being sued for trying to raise auto mileage standards, for example. Meanwhile, Texas has been given the OK to build over a dozen old-style coal burning power plants.
By all rights (pardon the term), SCOTUS will side with the states on this issue, which kind of cuts to the core of the concept of federalism vs. states rights.
But as we have learned, Bush’s appointments are taking the court not only to the right (so much for activist judges) but are resulting in some rather unusual decisions involving federalism vs. states rights. My favorite was the court’s rejection of the lawsuit against then-AG Ashcroft filed by two users of medical marijuana as approved by a voter referendum in California.
That was such an important states rights case that the Mississippi attorney general joined the woman not because that state’s government approved of medical marijuana (it did not) but because it was understood that the Bush administration wanted to strip states of the long-established and time honored right to listen to its citizens on matters such as medical marijuana.
Stay tuned . . .
Once again, the GOP is fighting for corporate donors against the common good. Creeps.
To be fair, the last few administrations have dropped the ball on this one. With Al Gore as his Veep, Clinton could have done a lot more. But Bush has decided that denial is a comfortable place to be on this issue. Environmental lobbyists will be coming back to town with the Democrats, so maybe we will see some results. In the meantime, I hope whatever laws that prevent the states from taking their own action are changed to allow it.
Kim,
Things that really need to be remembered about what Clinton could do versus Bush. First keep in mind how long Bush has been in office and how much more proof of the extent of warming’s effects has been discovered in that time. In addition it must be remembered how long Clinton had a Republican Senate that with the state of knowledge back then would have been very successful at stopping anything Clinton tried to do. Clinton didn’t have the view of an all powerful Presidency that Bush has.
Jim S- But Clinton had the bully pulpit- he had vastly superior leadership skills and could have taken his case to the public through Gore. He wasted a lot of his political capital on “don’t ask don’t tell”. That said he was a much better president than Bush- Bush has been a total nightmare. I find myself just hoping that he remains a real lame duck until he is out of office. He’s been dangerously irresponsible. But Clinton wasn’t -he’s one of the smartest men I can think of. So I expected much more out of him, than the incompetent in the Oval Office now.