Supreme Court divided over landmark global warming case.
By on Nov 29th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Supreme Court divided over landmark global warming case.
“The nine-member US Supreme Court appeared split as it took up the debate over global warming, with rival lawyers arguing whether some greenhouse gas emissions should be regulated.” The AP reports that the Court’s “conservative members seemed to recoil at the idea of government regulation, while their liberal colleagues openly embraced it.” The “pivotal swing vote,” Justice Anthony Kennedy, “did not reveal where he stood.”
UPDATE: More analysis of Kennedy’s role in the case at SCOTUSBlog.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Never mind Global Warming. If the Idiot-In-Chief attacks Iran to solve the Iraq problem we are all in for a Nuclear Winter.
November 29th, 2006 at 6:31 pmJust what I was thinking, Rebel.
November 29th, 2006 at 6:40 pmHi Zooey
I think I should have spelt it Neukleer LOL ;-)
November 29th, 2006 at 6:47 pmHi Rebel,
It would have been more clear spelled that way. Heh.
I wish they’d put cameras in the Supreme Court, then we could see for ourselves the way the Supremes act.
November 29th, 2006 at 6:49 pmWow, that’s revealing, what with the conservatives not wanting regulation while the liberals do. That’s some deep reporting there.
November 29th, 2006 at 6:54 pmAmerica’s Least Wanted
I’m not a liberal.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:05 pmI support carbon controls.
I am a liberal.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:07 pmI support carbon controls.
i thought it was new-ku-ler…
and no one at that hearing brought up bush’s own statements about oil addiction… too bad… now we wait till summer for the answer…
November 29th, 2006 at 7:11 pmI’m a breather, and support government regulation greenhouse gas emmissions, and regulation of Jason Hendler emmissions.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:13 pmThis is funny, Chimpy is saying he doesn’t have the power to regulate CO2 emissions.
This from the Chimperor, the Unitary Preznit, the Decider. The president who has been asserting unprecedented authority.
Bullshit.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:14 pmLet Drudge be the final decider on this issue!
November 29th, 2006 at 7:15 pmDon’t worry…ExxonMobil says Carbon Dioxide is LIFE.
Life itself.
Thats what their latest TV propaganda ad says.
Bullshit.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:17 pmChimpy’s a mouth breather.
That’s why he doesn’t support regulating CO2.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:18 pmThe opponents of Global Warming research and education are now insulting an animated penguin movie for its political agenda. What, they couldn’t refute real people, so they pick on dancing cartoons? Just when I think they can’t stoop any lower…
November 29th, 2006 at 7:22 pmIt is pretty amazing these Jurors are on the brink of a global decision which could effect the entire planet. And Justice Kennedy won’t reaveal his position.
My question is, does there have to be a decision from him at some point, or is this where it sits now?
Maybe MA the lawyer would know.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:22 pmregulation of Jason Hendler emmissions.
Comment by ForTruth — November 29, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
LOL!
I haven’t seen him in a while… perhaps your wish has been granted :)
November 29th, 2006 at 7:23 pmWell yeah, the carbon molecule is the building block of life, so carbon dioxide is good, right?
November 29th, 2006 at 7:24 pmI haven’t seen him in a while… perhaps your wish has been granted :)
Comment by unbelievable
The guy actually showed up earlier today, and you know he loves the “heat island” debate so much…
November 29th, 2006 at 7:27 pmZooey
Cameras in SCOTUS would mean opaque government (transparent being cameras w/ sound in the Oval Office).
OH WAIT, that is a good thing and closer to the Constitution. We cannot have that, can we?
November 29th, 2006 at 7:29 pmOH WAIT, that is a good thing and closer to the Constitution. We cannot have that, can we?
Comment by Rebel In CA
Oh hell no, not these days…
November 29th, 2006 at 7:36 pmThe guy actually showed up earlier today, and you know he loves the “heat island†debate so much…
Comment by ForTruth — November 29, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
I just saw… Damn…
Oh yes, how Michael Crichton – science fiction author who dropped out of med school – knows more about global warning that all the climatologists and astronomists in the world combined.
Sad. Just plain sad…
November 29th, 2006 at 7:38 pmWhat, they couldn’t refute real people, so they pick on dancing cartoons? — unbelievable
Bullies alway pick on those that can’t fight back and defend themselves. Cartoons are easy prey for them hahaha
November 29th, 2006 at 7:46 pmWe do not have liberal judges on the Supreme Court! We have radical corporatists and moderates. Even the Clinton appointees were picked by Hatch (R-UT)!
November 29th, 2006 at 7:48 pm#22
She sounds like “Coultergeist” or “Laura Ingrateham”
November 29th, 2006 at 8:05 pmCartoons are easy prey for them hahaha
Comment by Wayne — November 29, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
Considering SpongeBob beat them in their last attempt to smear an imaginary child’s plaything, I wouldn’t bet on that : )
November 29th, 2006 at 8:46 pmConsidering SpongeBob beat them in their last attempt to smear an imaginary child’s plaything, I wouldn’t bet on that : )
— unbelievable
hahaha
November 29th, 2006 at 9:55 pmOh, the poor wimps
I am trying to figure out why the SCOTUS is being allowed to decide a scientific question. To the best of my knowledge, none of them are scientists. The SCOTUS needs to acknowledges this and turn this over to the appropriate people, which is not the courts.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:16 pmAnd here we see more of the true and lasting damage that Bush has done to our country. Notice Scalia is mouthing the oil company talking points and he is of course one of Bush’s “darlings”.
Amazing that we could have such stupid people in charge of the Supreme Court. Debate as to how much warming is attributable to people? Hardly. There is no other change in the system which would explain it. The sun’s variability has been insufficient, the Earth’s place in orbit and its tilt are still the same, etc. There is no other explanation that so simply and effectively fits the problem.
Funny how these “activist judges” think they know more about atmospheric science than the scientists themselves.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:36 pmI have the hardest time trying to figure out why this is a Supreme Court case.
Aside from the scientific debate, why not wait until there is a different President and direction for the EPA on this one? Even if the Court decides the EPA must regulate, there will be a half hearted effort at this point.
The science end of this case is also confusing. It seems that the only real practical short term way to reduce CO2 emissions (by product of every respiration as well as combustion) in transportation, is to promote mass transit or carpooling and to require gas mileage reqs for auto makers.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:03 amHow can lawyers/judges make a decision on a scientific matter that will affect our grandchildren’s future and the entire world? What is wrong with this picture?
November 30th, 2006 at 9:19 amIf Ggod created the earth and its creatures, why are religious crackpots like Scalia, Alito, and Thomas, so intent on trashing his gift? But I guess I answered myself. The operative word is “crackpot”.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:34 amHow can lawyers/judges make a decision on a scientific matter that will affect our grandchildren’s future and the entire world? What is wrong with this picture?
Comment by Evergreen — November 30, 2006 @ 9:19 am
Unfortunately, they also made the decision to place the Boy King on the throne in 2000. Look how well that has worked for America and the world at large.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:38 amI think those of you that think global warming and greenhouse gases are not an immediate threat or a greater threat to the planet than terrorists should watch the movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” It will open your eyes.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:28 pm