SCOTUS has ruled, gas guzzlers you are warned!

[Okla-homey]

...and Sen Inhofe is about to throw a clot!


The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency must consider greenhouse gases as pollutants, in a blow to the White House.

"Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles," the court ruled.

[ I bet they cited Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc, 467 US 837 (1984) too BTW -- I love it when a law school course actually imparts skillz necessary to predict a case outcome.:D ]

Led by Massachusetts, a dozen states along with several US cities and environmental groups went to the courts to determine whether the agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide emissions.

"The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized," said judge John Paul Stevens as the ruling was carried by five votes in favor to four against.

The Republican administration of US President George W. Bush has fiercely opposed any imposition of binding greenhouse limits on the nation's industry.

Environmentalists have alleged that since Bush came to office in 2001 his administration has ignored and tried to hide looming evidence of global warming and the key role of human activity in climate change.

As the issue has come to the fore in the US, the White House earlier this year issued a rare open letter defending Bush's record on climate change, rejecting criticisms that he has only recently awakened to the problem.

Monday's ruling was immediately hailed by environmental campaigners which has been fighting for greater regulations in a nation which accounts for a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.

"It is a watershed moment in the fight against global warming," said Josh Dorner, spokesman for the Sierra Club environmental group.

"This is a total repudiation of the refusal of the Bush administration to use the authority he has to meet the challenge posed by global warming.

It also "sends a clear signal to the market that the future lies not in dirty, outdated technology of yesterday, but in clean energy solutions of tomorrow like wind, solar," he added.

[Harry Beanbag]

So does that mean we can't breath anymore, you know, since we exhale carbon dioxide?

[Sam Spade]

So does that mean we can't breath anymore, you know, since we exhale carbon dioxide?
You'll just have to learn to breath through your nose.

[mdklatt]

So does that mean we can't breath anymore, you know, since we exhale carbon dioxide?

We all crap too, so does that mean the government can't set standards for how much **** is in your drinking water?

[Harry Beanbag]

We all crap too, so does that mean the government can't set standards for how much **** is in your drinking water?


Don't be so uptight. It was a poor attempt at humor I know, but that's all it was...a joke. Kind of like Sam Spade.

[Suerreal]

::shaking head::
Lawyers make lousy scientists.
Scientists make lousy lawyers.

- Sue

[Okla-homey]

All this means is, the scientists and bureacrats in EPA wanted a more expansive reading of what constitutes "pollution" to include "green house gasses." Since EPA is the federal agency charged with execution of the "Clean Air Act," the Court deferred to them.

The point about that 1984 case, is that in the case, SCOTUS unveiled the policy of deference to agency experts when it comes to executing a law Congress has made that particular agency responsible for administering, as long as that interpretation is reasonable -- known as the "Chevron Test" to adminstrative law geeks.

Thus, this isn't "lawyers playing scientist." It's almost precisely the opposite. Because judges aren't scientists, they, again, defer to the view of the experts in EPA.

[mdklatt]

All this means is, the scientists and bureacrats in EPA wanted a more expansive reading of what constitutes "pollution" to include "green house gasses."

But wasn't the EPA one of the defendants? I thought that the EPA was being sued for not regulating greenhouse gases, as it is apparently required to do under the Clean Air Act. So, were the EPA higher-ups refusing to do what their own bureacrats and scientists thought needed to be done? That wouldn't be the first time that Bush cronies have overruled the scientific conclusions of their own departments based on political considerations.

[85Sooner]

Funny, I havn't read that clause in the constitution where the supreme court has any jurisdiction over anything pertaining to this. What constitution you ask? I am beginning to ask the same question.

[sanantoniosooner]

You may thank me now for NOT posting the copycat thread that comes to mind.

[mdklatt]

Funny, I havn't read that clause in the constitution where the supreme court has any jurisdiction over anything pertaining to this.

The Supreme Court isn't allowed to interpret laws?

:confused:

[Sam Spade]

Don't be so uptight. It was a poor attempt at humor I know, but that's all it was...a joke. Kind of like Sam Spade.
Wacka...Wacka...WACKA!!!!


Couldn't think of a comeback, could ya? heh...

[Harry Beanbag]

Wacka...Wacka...WACKA!!!!


Couldn't think of a comeback, could ya? heh...


Comeback for what?

[Sam Spade]

Comeback for what?
Oh, Sweet Jesus, how I love thee...:D

[1stTimeCaller]

a curious mix, for sure.

[Sam Spade]

I wouldn't call him "curious" LOL

[SweetheartSooner]

All this means is, the scientists and bureacrats in EPA wanted a more expansive reading of what constitutes "pollution" to include "green house gasses." Since EPA is the federal agency charged with execution of the "Clean Air Act," the Court deferred to them.

The point about that 1984 case, is that in the case, SCOTUS unveiled the policy of deference to agency experts when it comes to executing a law Congress has made that particular agency responsible for administering, as long as that interpretation is reasonable -- known as the "Chevron Test" to adminstrative law geeks.

Thus, this isn't "lawyers playing scientist." It's almost precisely the opposite. Because judges aren't scientists, they, again, defer to the view of the experts in EPA.


I haven't read the opinion, but from my understanding, Mass. was demanding that the EPA regulate CO2, but the EPA refused. So it's not about deferring to agency discretion, it was the Court telling them look into regulating. (that was my understanding - not sure that is correct - don't hold me accountable) ;)

[mdklatt]

I haven't read the opinion, but from my understanding, Mass. was demanding that the EPA regulate CO2, but the EPA refused. So it's not about deferring to agency discretion, it was the Court telling them look into regulating.

That was my understanding, too. The court told the EPA that it had better start doing something, or else come up with a better excuse than "we don't want to".

[Harry Beanbag]

Oh, Sweet Jesus, how I love thee...:D


You are the weirdest and weakest smacktard on this board. Do you even know wtf you're talking about? :confused: Your arrogantly smug false bravado attempting to belittle people is only fooling you. Everyone else has your lame act figured out.

[Sam Spade]

You are the weirdest and weakest smacktard on this board. Do you even know wtf you're talking about? :confused: Your arrogantly smug false bravado attempting to belittle people is only fooling you. Everyone else has your lame act figured out.
The second you say anything even remotely intelligent, I'll start giving you and your opinions a bit of credit. And the fact that you completely missed my playful little jab and came back with something that only reinforced it...TWICE...just reinforces my point.

Until then...

[Harry Beanbag]

The second you say anything even remotely intelligent, I'll start giving you and your opinions a bit of credit. And the fact that you completely missed my playful little jab and came back with something that only reinforced it...TWICE...just reinforces my point.

Until then...


Who said I missed your "playful little jab"? I got it, hahahahaha, is that better?

Sorry I disappoint or hurt your feelings by not responding to all of your "playful little jabs". As long as you amuse yourself that's all that really matters.

[Sam Spade]

You, too.Si, Senor Moderador!

[jk the sooner fan]

a curious mix, for sure.

wasnt that a hoot?

[Sam Spade]

Who said I missed your "playful little jab"? I got it, hahahahaha, is that better?

Sorry I disappoint or hurt your feelings by not responding to all of your "playful little jabs". As long as you amuse yourself that's all that really matters.I'll stay away from the flaming, as instructed, but I just want to point out that you can't say...


Comeback for what?

and


You are the weirdest and weakest smacktard on this board. Do you even know wtf you're talking about? :confused:

and then pretend you actually got it all along with...


Who said I missed your "playful little jab"? I got it, hahahahaha, is that better?

Just sayin'. That WAS kinda a lame cover...;)

[Harry Beanbag]

words


Yeah, you've got it all figured out. :rolleyes: Of course you're so caught up in your own little game that you don't even know what is actually happening.

Every post you make is smack. I don't come here to engage in high school smackfests with posters like you, hence the reason I ignored you the first time. But if that doesn't fit your machismo schtick version of events, don't let me stop you...whoever you are.

[Sam Spade]

Okay. I'll be the one to walk away. Sheesh...

[1stTimeCaller]

An old miner rides his mule into town and is hitching it up in front of the saloon when a drunk cowboy wnaders out. The cowboy begins shooting at the mule's feet. The mule's bucking and braying and going nuts. The miner waits for the cowboy to empty his six-shooters and then pulls out his double-barreled shotgun. He grabs the cowboy and puts the barrells under his chin as he lifts up the mules tail. The miner says, 'Have you ever kissed a mule's ***?' The cowboy responds, 'No, but I always wanted to.'