The Newest Lib Attempt to Rule via the Courts

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

... I find Scalia – a lot more than many other SCOTUS justices in my lifetime (possibly even more than Rehnquist) to be a strict ideologue who (IMHO) pre-judges cases based on personal philosophy and then crafts the reasoning to support his pre-ordained conclusions. In other words, I find him intellectually dishonest. ....

I'm in full agreement.
"Quack Quack".

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

In terms of this court, science shouldn't mean a damned thing. The reason is that the SCOTUS is not the forum to be making findings of fact.

So why is Scalia baiting the prosecution by asking about when this "cataclysm is supposed to occur"?
I have no respect for Scalia anymore. He used to be an interesting character that I disagreed with most of the time but I could respect his arguments. When he arrogantly refused to recuse himself from Cheney's case, that was the last straw for me. He should have been kicked off the bench.

[lawrocket 3]

Update - the SCOTUS today told the EPA to get off of its collective ass.

First, the court foudn that there was standing to sue. (Not important to most. but to those like me who dig procedural issues, this was a biggie). Using and somewhat expanding the inquiry for the standing of states that was expressed in the Lujan Case, the court found that Mass had standing. The court explained there are differences when a state sues, but still the state must demonstrate it's stake - an injury (damage from greenhouse gases), the EPA's causation of the injury (failure to regulate greenhouse gases), and a remedy available (EPA can regulate the greenhouse gases). The SCOTUS, therefore, found that standing required for States is less than for private citizens.

The court found that the Clean Air Act gave the Court the jurisdiction to review its decisions procedurally.

The court then found that the statute authorized the EPA to regualte greenhouse gases (the EPA and Bush Admin siad that it did not.) Also that the court didn't care if regaulating greenhouse gases moved in on the Dept. of Transportation's territory.

Finally, the SCOTUS found that the EPA provided no reasonable explanation for why it refused to make a finding that greenhouse gases cause or contribute to global warming. On that basis, the SCOTUS found the EPA's actions (or inactions) were "arbitrary and capricious" - important language under review of administrative actions.

So the SCOTUS remanded it to the lower courts, which means that the trial court will find that the EPA handled it wrong.

Here's the kicker that is not explained (for obvious reasons - those "in the know" know what it means) - the court will direct the EPA to reconsider the issue applying the ruling. So, this decision does not require the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, nor does it set standards, etc. It merely tells the EPA to look at the issue again and follow the damned rules, which is what Administrative Procedure is about.

By way of example, it's why you cannot go to court to get your driver's license. It's handled by an administrative agency. All a court can do it vacate an agency's decision and tell it to reconsider it following proper procedures.

---

The first dissent was dissenting on the basis of standing - that Massachussetts could not show the proper basis for standing to sue because it could not make the showing under established standards. I think they have a bit of a point in that, well, the majority admits that this action won't stop global warming, bu might slow it down. The dissent said, "Every little bit helps, so Massachusetts can sue over any little bit." This is actually where I'm torn - it's tough to think of good reasons to sue for "every little bit" - just as tough as finding reasons why you shouldn't be able to sue for every little bit.

On the second dissent (dissent on the merits), I think the dissenters were wrong. "The question thus arises: Does anything require the Administrator to make a “judgment” whenever a petition for rulemaking is filed?" It went on to discuss that the majority did not look at the statute for its finding.

However, I believe that any time a petition is put forth, a decision should be made, or reasons should be stated as to why no decision is being made. This prevents putting matters in the "circular file."

While there are concerns with the SCOTUS asnwering a political question, I believe that on the merits, this court had it right.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Zipp0 1]

Holy shit, you mean the Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to protect the environment?!

Thank God for the courts for figuring out this complex legal issue.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

you mean the Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to protect the environment

If a law was passed by Congress and signed by the President that required the Environmental Protection Agency to direct the disposal of all lead wastes into Lake Superior, the that's what the EPA would do.

Government agencies can only do what they are told to do by law. Without a law telling it that it can or must do something, it will not. Example? The Department of education was not around until 1979 - though it was previously under the HHS.

Now, lots of laws affect the ED. If you think about the "No Child Left Behind" Act, which was supposed to increase education standards, youwould think that you wouldn't need a law to allow an agency to force stricter education standards. But it does - agencies can ONLY do what they are empowered to do.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

you mean the Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to protect the environment

If a law was passed by Congress and signed by the President that required the Environmental Protection Agency to direct the disposal of all lead wastes into Lake Superior, the that's what the EPA would do.

Sounds like a genius way to run a country.

I thought the issue was the EPA choosing NOT to enforce the law? If congress passes a law and then the Prez puts his cronies in charge and they tell the agency not to ennforce certain laws, the system breaks down.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[lawrocket 3]

The dissent says that there is nothing in the Code section that requires the EPA do act on a petition. The dissent is right.

I don't think it is appropriate, however, for something to be set up where issues brought up don't get attention. In a sense, I argue rewriting a statute, which is bad. But, then again, I see problems with equal protection unless a mechanism is built in.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

I agree with your reasoning in general execpt for one point. Global Warming (as in man made GW) is not science. To sue to stop or slow something that, as of right now, has no solid sceintific proof, puts this purely into a political arena, not law.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,990]

>puts this purely into a political arena, not law.

Now that's funny!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>puts this purely into a political arena, not law.

Now that's funny!

More scary than funny.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Global Warming (as in man made GW) is not science.

Do you really believe that making this claim often enough will make it true?

Politicians may argue the point, but scientists are largely in agreement.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 23]

Politicians may argue the point, but scientists are largely in agreement.

[billvon 2,990]

>And you think making this statement makes it true?

It's only true in universities, UCAR, NOAA and places like that. In the media, congress and internet forums, almost no one is in agreement.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>And you think making this statement makes it true?

It's only true in universities, UCAR, NOAA and places like that. In the media, congress and internet forums, almost no one is in agreement.

Another bs statement to try and make it true. And if I am wrong tell me how many there are and what percentage of them sign up to your point of view.

I won't hold my breath.

Science by concensus is what you want. Now more and more are speaking out and bring out arguments and counter arguments. The GWing bs is in the beginnings of its end. Whether or not you agee is irrelavant as only time and good science will tell

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Global Warming (as in man made GW) is not science.

The opinion starts out reading like the SCOTUS accepts seemingly as a matter of law that global warming is a reality. But, in reading the opinion further, the SCOTUS cited to affidavits of the Petitioners, and there were no affidavits from the EPA side opposing them. Thus, the court didn't have to weigh this evidence - it was all in the State's favor.

There is CERTAINLY a political question underlying it. What the SCOTUS did was make the EPA perform a proper examination of it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Another bs statement to try and make it true.
. . .
Science by concensus is what you want.

You may want science by consensus. Scientists, however, prefer evidence to popularity. Global warming may not be popular, but it is the most probable explanation of actual evidence.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,990]

>And if I am wrong tell me how many there are and what percentage
>of them sign up to your point of view.

I'm sure none of them would sign up to "my point of view" because, again, science doesn't work like that. Scientists don't endorse "points of view." They don't care if they are popular among other scientists. They don't ask "what line are we all agreeing on today?" They go with what they can prove. They create hypotheses, test them, and conclude based on those tests whether their hypotheses are correct. Here's one experiment they could do:

Hypothesis: The earth's average temperature will increase between X and Y degrees in Z years based on the forcing we are seeing, and based on these assumptions.

Test: Wait 10 years, see what happens. Measure temperatures and CO2

Result: The temperature actually did increase A degrees. That means assumptions B and C are probably valid, assumptions D and E are not.

New hypothesis: B and C are valid.

Etc etc.

>Science by concensus is what you want.

?? No I don't. You're the one claiming "more and more people are speaking against scientist's results, so the CONSENSUS is that it's not true!"

>as only time and good science will tell

It will indeed. Of course, you will remain unconvinced, no matter what the science says.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

It will indeed. Of course, you will remain unconvinced, no matter what the science says.

He'll remain unconvinced when the last glacier melts, the last city floods, the last fish floats to the surface, and half of humanity dies of thirst and starvation.

"It isn't happening! Maybe it's happening but it's not our fault! Maybe it's our fault but it's for the best! Maybe it's bad but bad things are inevitable! Maybe it wasn't inevitable but Clinton did it first!"

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Global Warming (as in man made GW) is not science.

The opinion starts out reading like the SCOTUS accepts seemingly as a matter of law that global warming is a reality. But, in reading the opinion further, the SCOTUS cited to affidavits of the Petitioners, and there were no affidavits from the EPA side opposing them. Thus, the court didn't have to weigh this evidence - it was all in the State's favor.

There is CERTAINLY a political question underlying it. What the SCOTUS did was make the EPA perform a proper examination of it.

If they are making the EPA examine the question then I have no problem with any of this. Assuming of course they use science

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,990]

>I making the EPA examine the question then I have no problem with any of this.

I suspect you will have a problem very rapidly. The EPA's current position:


-----------------------------------------------------
Science

For over the past 200 years, the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, and deforestation have caused the concentrations of heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" to increase significantly in our atmosphere. These gases prevent heat from escaping to space, somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse.

Greenhouse gases are necessary to life as we know it, because they keep the planet's surface warmer than it otherwise would be. But, as the concentrations of these gases continue to increase in the atmosphere, the Earth's temperature is climbing above past levels. According to NOAA and NASA data, the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4ºF since 1900. The warmest global average temperatures on record have all occurred within the past 15 years, with the warmest two years being 1998 and 2005. Most of the warming in recent decades is likely the result of human activities. Other aspects of the climate are also changing such as rainfall patterns, snow and ice cover, and sea level.

If greenhouse gases continue to increase, climate models predict that the average temperature at the Earth's surface could increase from 2.5 to 10.4ºF above 1990 levels by the end of this century. Scientists are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere, and that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will change the planet's climate. But they are not sure by how much it will change, at what rate it will change, or what the exact effects will be. See the Science and Health and Environmental Effects sections of this site for more detail.

U.S. Climate Policy

The United States government has established a comprehensive policy to address climate change. This policy has three basic components:

* Slowing the growth of emissions
* Strengthening science, technology and institutions
* Enhancing international cooperation

To implement its climate policy, the Federal government is using voluntary and incentive-based programs to reduce emissions and has established programs to promote climate technology and science. This strategy incorporates know-how from many federal agencies and harnesses the power of the private sector.

In February 2002, the United States announced a comprehensive strategy to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the American economy by 18 percent over the 10-year period from 2002 to 2012. Greenhouse gas intensity is a measurement of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of economic activity. Meeting this commitment will prevent the release of more than 100 million metric tons of carbon-equivalent emissions to the atmosphere (annually) by 2012 and more than 500 million metric tons (cumulatively) between 2002 and 2012.

EPA plays a significant role in helping the Federal government reach the United States' intensity goal. EPA has many current and near-term initiatives that encourage voluntary reductions from a variety of stakeholders. Initiatives, such as ENERGY STAR, Climate Leaders, and our Methane Voluntary Programs, encourage emission reductions from large corporations, consumers, industrial and commercial buildings, and many major industrial sectors. For details on these and other initiatives as well as other aspects of U.S. policy, visit the U.S. Climate Policy section of the site.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Another bs statement to try and make it true.
. . .
Science by concensus is what you want.

You may want science by consensus. Scientists, however, prefer evidence to popularity. Global warming may not be popular, but it is the most probable explanation of actual evidence.

Now wait a minute. I thought you just posted agreeing that most scientists agree........ I don't every want science by concensus but stating that "most scientists" agree is doing just that.

As for the evidence. The evidence is starting to come out that GWing is not a man made happening (assuming it is happening at all as that is now being questioned by some scientists, but I digress) I want evidence, not flawed and tweaked computer models matched up with misleading graphs that ignore other factors.

1st GWing has yet to be proven that it is even happening as some researchers are now quetioning the data gathering itself. The the measurement system is flawed then the data is junk.

2nd If GWing is happening there is even less credible eveidence that man is causing it. One propent of GWing I heard on the radio Sunday was asked about sea levels if his dire perdictions came true. What level would the sea really reach. He said 35' higher than today (worse case senario). He said that level was once reached 1000 years ago proving it could get that high.

Well, if that happened over a 1000 years ago, did man cause it then??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

>as only time and good science will tell

It will indeed. Of course, you will remain unconvinced, no matter what the science says.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I making the EPA examine the question then I have no problem with any of this.

I suspect you will have a problem very rapidly. The EPA's current position:


-----------------------------------------------------
Science

For over the past 200 years, the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, and deforestation have caused the concentrations of heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" to increase significantly in our atmosphere. These gases prevent heat from escaping to space, somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse.

Greenhouse gases are necessary to life as we know it, because they keep the planet's surface warmer than it otherwise would be. But, as the concentrations of these gases continue to increase in the atmosphere, the Earth's temperature is climbing above past levels. According to NOAA and NASA data, the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4ºF since 1900. The warmest global average temperatures on record have all occurred within the past 15 years, with the warmest two years being 1998 and 2005. Most of the warming in recent decades is likely the result of human activities. Other aspects of the climate are also changing such as rainfall patterns, snow and ice cover, and sea level.

If greenhouse gases continue to increase, climate models predict that the average temperature at the Earth's surface could increase from 2.5 to 10.4ºF above 1990 levels by the end of this century. Scientists are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere, and that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will change the planet's climate. But they are not sure by how much it will change, at what rate it will change, or what the exact effects will be. See the Science and Health and Environmental Effects sections of this site for more detail.

U.S. Climate Policy

The United States government has established a comprehensive policy to address climate change. This policy has three basic components:

* Slowing the growth of emissions
* Strengthening science, technology and institutions
* Enhancing international cooperation

To implement its climate policy, the Federal government is using voluntary and incentive-based programs to reduce emissions and has established programs to promote climate technology and science. This strategy incorporates know-how from many federal agencies and harnesses the power of the private sector.

In February 2002, the United States announced a comprehensive strategy to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the American economy by 18 percent over the 10-year period from 2002 to 2012. Greenhouse gas intensity is a measurement of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of economic activity. Meeting this commitment will prevent the release of more than 100 million metric tons of carbon-equivalent emissions to the atmosphere (annually) by 2012 and more than 500 million metric tons (cumulatively) between 2002 and 2012.

EPA plays a significant role in helping the Federal government reach the United States' intensity goal. EPA has many current and near-term initiatives that encourage voluntary reductions from a variety of stakeholders. Initiatives, such as ENERGY STAR, Climate Leaders, and our Methane Voluntary Programs, encourage emission reductions from large corporations, consumers, industrial and commercial buildings, and many major industrial sectors. For details on these and other initiatives as well as other aspects of U.S. policy, visit the U.S. Climate Policy section of the site.

If you think the EPA is not a political animal you are fooling yourself. But you wont care if they agree with you. If they did not they are of course then by default politically twisted by and admin with which you do not agree

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,990]

>When those ideas are put out there for you to see, you quickly go after the source.

Actually I go after the science. But you have to understand the science to begin with to see that.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>When those ideas are put out there for you to see, you quickly go after the source.

Actually I go after the science. But you have to understand the science to begin with to see that.

Ya, as you imply I must be stupid. Nice

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln