It is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret the laws of the United States (those laws can only be created by Congress). Yesterday, in MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. four Supreme Court justices did this, while five did not. It is the duty of the Supreme Court not to give opinions on facets of science that are still controversial and unproven, let alone to use such opinions for making new law (which the Constitution of the United States leaves to Congress). Yesterday, four Justices fulfilled their Constitutional duty, while five exceeded it.I'm not sure why Al Gore visited congress recently, unless he's trying to run for President of the United States or Secretary General of the United Nations. Surely he must have known that "the third branch" of the legislature would "solve" the issue that he was trying to get the regularly elected Congress to decide. By a 5-4 decision yesterday, the Supreme Court decided once and for all that there is no controversy surrounding greenhouse gases, their source, and their effect on global warming.
"The EPA's steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions presents a risk of harm to Massachusetts that is both 'actual' and 'imminent'", said renowned scientist Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority. "Its action was therefore 'arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,"' the arbitrary and capricious Stevens concluded.
Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking for the minority, stated that the minority decision "involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem". As it should not. As neither should the majority's decision. The minority decision in the case was that such a monumental controversy should not be settled by 5 guys against 4. Rather, Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito correctly understood that such an issue must be decided by Congress.
In an attempt to turn western ideals of justice on its head, the majority required the EPA to prove a negative.
the justices said the agency can escape its regulatory duties "only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change, or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do."
The explanations given by the EPA, and solicited by the majority of the court, were rejected out of hand.
"The Supreme Court has reaffirmed what we have been saying all along: The Clean Air Act gives EPA authority to fight global warming," said Howard Fox, a lawyer for Earthjustice, who argued the case before a federal appeals court, forgetting that Greenhouse Gases being the cause of Global Warming has not been proven.
Many scientists believe that greenhouse gases cause Global Warming, and thus they can be considered pollutants. Many scientists do not believe this, while many others feel that greenhouse gases have a much smaller effect on the warming of the globe.
So far, no scientist I have heard of, read about, or read from has stated that they know that Greenhouse Gases cause Global Warming (I don't consider Al Gore a scientist). Rather, the consensus among those who believe is that we can't take the chance that we're wrong.
I feel so much warmer and fuzzier now that we have 5 people in black robes who do know Greenhouse-Gas-caused Global Warming to be a fact. It saves Congress so much time!
Yet another piece of judicial legislation in the spirit of Roe v. Wade.
ReplyDeleteThird branch of Congress? Do you forget which party has made the majority of Supreme Court appointments in the past 20 years?
ReplyDeleteAnd in order to defeat an arguement, you must first understand it. Scientists do not debate the nature of carbon emissions, in fact they ALL agree they are pollutants. What they disagree on is the effect they are having on the environment.
Thus, the Supreme Courts ruling should not upset you as it seems to have, because what they have decided is that IF the connection between the POLLUTANTS of carbon emissions is SCIENTIFICALLY tied to Global Warming, than the EPA has "jurisdiction" over Global Warming concerns.
It's called interpreting the constitution, and our nation is built on the ability to do it. We do a disservice to ourselves and our nation and our political agendas by writing reactionary tripe such as what you have posted here. We must argue intelligently, not just babble rhetoric against an issue we are told to disagree with.
You're making us look stupid.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteSorry you think I'm stupid.
It doesn't matter which party appoints Justices. It matters whether they think their job is to interpret the constitution or to make new law. I allege (quite correctly, I think) that 5 of them just made new law.
Five members of the Supreme Court decided that CO2 DOES cause global warming. This issue is still undecided.
I thought my argument to be rather intelligent, but that's just me. Who told me to disagree with global warming anyway, as you allege?
Frank, I think I've figured out what your problem with the global warming data is: It's scary. It occurs to me that you have children (I do not) and it might be too much for you to contemplate that they would live to see catastrophe.
ReplyDeleteNo, but good guess. I've just studied it a little, and I can see that rather than me being scared, I refuse to be cowed by irrational scare tactics. My kids about crapped their pants when they watch "An Inconvenient Truth" with me, until I showed them how Al Gore was exaggerating at every turn.
ReplyDeleteA footnote:
ReplyDeleteRegarding the majority definition that "anything" emitted by humans is a pollutant, Justice Scalia stated "It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an 'air pollutant.' This reading of the statute defies common sense."