Court Rebukes Administration in Global Warming Case says the NYT (thanks to J), and its April the 2nd not first so I guess we can trust them.
In a vain attempt to blog this before the usual suspects do, I haven't bothered to more than skim the report of the decision. But it looks interesting... "In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars. Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion." OK, so far so obvious. "The court's four conservative justices -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- dissented." No real surprise there. I'm sure people who know the court better will analyse the split more carefully. "The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the court agreed last year to hear its first global warming case." Indeed? Not that the court cares for that... does it? "In many ways, the debate has moved beyond this," said Chris Miller, director of the global warming campaign for Greenpeace, one of the environmental groups that sued the EPA. "All the front-runners in the 2008 presidential campaign, both Democrats and Republicans, even the business community, are much further along on this than the Bush administration is." Indeed. So is the court swinging behind the new political mood? Maybe. I couldn't judge. "EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," sez the court. Of course that doesn't mean that the EPA actually *will* regulate them... they could just go back and scrounge up some better reasons. Or (and this is my bet) they could just set off a review of their decision and wait for the next Prez election before they make up their minds.
- Log in to post comments
""The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the court agreed last year to hear its first global warming case." Indeed? Not that the court cares for that... does it?"
Various schools of legal realism argue that judges make decisions for reasons other than the legal analysis they state as their justification. You could see a range in the seriousness about climate change, with the majority taking it very seriously, the Roberts dissent moderately, and Scalia dissent barely mentioning its importance. I think the increased awareness affects Supreme Court justices.
My guess is that EPA staffers will try and delay until the next president, but Bush could try and push it out in his term if he really wants to - for good or for evil.