Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 04/17/2011 9:40:08 PM PDT by Rabin
The court is taking up a climate change case for the second time in four years. In 2007, the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
By a 5-4 vote, the justices said the EPA has the authority to regulate those emissions...
Global warming, by its very name, suggests a more complex problem.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
We shall see how the court finds, the blow back will be huge either way
One of the worst decisions by the court in recent years.
Neck and neck with Kelo.
I agree. It was a terrible decision.
This case is different however. Regardless of your position on climate change, the states and environmental organizations do not have standing. If they are granted standing, every organization and state should have standing on any federal legislation.
Big green chasing after big green.
Law school, legal practice, and years on various judicial benches clearly work to erase any recollection of that classic gradeschool textbook diagram: Sunlight + CO2 + plants = food for everyone.
The court has time for these fairy tales,,but when it comes to 0’b and his healthcare scam they are aiding and abeting treason.
...and STILL no word on this case
As for there being "no word on this case", there have been words or developments on all the cases.
In December, numerous attempts were made by various claimants/cases to enjoin EPA from implementing until all the lawsuits played out in the courts. Texas made two attempts, at the DC court of appeals and at the 5th circuit. They all failed.
And most recently, in the Senate, there were the four amendments to the small business legislation that would block, delay, or in some way modify EPA's effort to regulate CO2. They all failed.
Because they all failed the GOP was then forced to drop the EPA policy rider from the budget negotiations.
The underlying problem with the Peabody case is that SCOTUS used the same sources in their 2007 ruling that EPA used in their endangerment findings. If the sources are credible in the eyes of SCOTUS, then they would also be credible to the EPA.
As they have said since 2009, the most likely law suit to be won to stop EPA will be on the tailoring rule. Does EPA have the legal authority to tailor aka change the regulatory threshold for CO2, or does only Congress have that authority.
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.