Breaking: Supreme Court Sides Against Bush In Monumental Global Warming Case
Breaking: Supreme Court Sides Against Bush In Monumental Global Warming Case
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today issued a “stunning rebuke” to the Bush administration and “ruled that the federal government does indeed have authority to regulate greenhouse gases linked to global warming.”
Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch writes, “The Supreme Court has confirmed that carbon dioxide can be controlled under the Clean Air Act. That means California and other states have the clear right to limit greenhouse gas emissions if the Bush administration won’t.”
UPDATE: Some background: the case emerged in 2003 after the EPA rejected a petition calling for the federal government to restrict emissions of greenhouse gases — most notably, carbon dioxide. The EPA’s general counsel argued in a memo that “[carbon dioxide] and other [greenhouse gases], as such, are not air pollutants,” and “substantial scientific uncertainty” still exists about the effects of carbon dioxide on the environment.
The statement meant the Bush administration would not have to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld this view. (The Washington Post would later report that “two of the jurists who helped decide the case” had “attended a six-day global warming seminar…sponsored by a free-market foundation and featuring presentations from companies with a clear financial interest in limiting regulation.”)
Twelve states, three major cities, and several environmental groups appealed the decision, arguing the case “goes to the heart of the EPA’s statutory responsibilities to deal with the most pressing environmental problem of our time.”
UPDATE II: SCOTUSblog has more on today’s decisions. Read the full decision HERE.
UPDATE III: The four dissenters in the case: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
83 Responses to “Breaking: Supreme Court Sides Against Bush In Monumental Global Warming Case”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Uh oh…you mean the ROBERTS Supreme Court???
Jakers is gonna be crushed. ^_^
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:47 amI hope Justice Stevens can hold on until January of ‘09
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:52 amMaybe they really sided with Bush. If they upheld the EPA’s claims, the democrats would likely legislate restrictions that would be worse than any restrictions the business friendly EPA would impose.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:01 amHey Jake, take that exhaust pipe and stick it where the sun dont shine.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:02 amScore one for the Earth!
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:09 amWhile I am a huge fan of the government working to stop Global warming, I simply love how TP once again shows it communist roots by acting like a conference pertaining to free markets is a bad thing. Proof is in the pudding I guess.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:11 amWho’s going to force the Bush Admin to actually enforce it?
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:11 amI thought Jake said he and Bush never denied there was climate change going on? They simply discount the man-made factors.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:16 amWhen W signs the executive order that initiates the CO2 enforcement order, he will issue a signing statement to the effect that it will not be enforced.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:21 amRepublicans simply hate that the Bible asks them to act as stewards of the earth. The keep looking for the passage that reads, “thou shall treat the earth as thy only personal toilet, forsaking all of God’s creatures for the almighty dollar.”
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:21 amLet’s hope the next administration is a rational one that will take advantage of this ruling and lets hope that happnes before ‘08.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:22 am#6: Free markets gave us Bhopal. I prefer the government exercise some rational regulation.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:23 amWhile I am a huge fan of the government working to stop Global warming, I simply love how TP once again shows it communist roots by acting like a conference pertaining to free markets is a bad thing. Proof is in the pudding I guess.
Comment by Roger_Roger
It’s a blatant and incurable conflict of interest, Rogerx2.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:23 amComment by Roger_Roger — April 2, 2007 @ 11:11 am
No, dumbass, the post reads that the conference “pertained” to global warming and was warped towards one “side” of the argument. It was sponsored by a free-market foundation with a clear financial interest in the case going a particular way. Put 2 and 2 together, and one side was arguing ex curia their side of the case.
Also, BTW, the adage you want to quote is, “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” So, there, eat me.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:24 amI hate America, which is why I support invading and occupying countries which are not hotbeds of Islamic extremist terror, and oppose going after bin Laden.
I hate America, which is why I agree with bin Laden that American liberals, with their feminism, cultural diversity, and tolerance for differences, should be subjected to sharia law, or its American equivalent.
I will work tirelessly to achieve these goals.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:24 amCharles sez:
I can’t speak for Jake, but Chimpy’s stance on the issue is well-documented.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:26 amThe “Roberts” Court also denied an appeal today from the Gitmo detainees. A federal appeals court in Washington in February had upheld a key provision of a law enacted last year that strips federal courts of their ability to hear such challenges. Read it here.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:34 amFinally, CO2 has been labeled a pollutant and can be regulated by the EPA. This is HUGE.
Sorry old Shrub, you lose AGAIN.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:42 amOh, I completely agree the government should be regulating greenhouse gases. I was just pointing out that’s not such a “stunning rebuke” either way. Bush and the EPA will simply continue along their merry way.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:43 amI’ll have to agree with Charles, now begins the long hard slog of getting Congress to actually enact any measures, having to fight industry every step of the way…
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:47 amI remember when the EPA washed its hands of this matter and I decided that was as good an example as any that the current administration was opening up the doors of chicken coop so the foxes can all just rush in!
Have you ever seen an American government that hated to govern so much?
I mean, if the EPA doesn’t have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide who does?!
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:48 amThe judges who attended the seminar were from the Appealate Court, not the Supreme Court.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:49 am[…] post by Think Progress and software by Elliott Back Bookmark […]
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:50 amSo much for seperation of church and state.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:57 amThis is actually good news. Now when Hillary takes office in 2009, she can bring the country up to par with other environmentally friendly nations by DOING something about global warming
( basically every other nation aknowledges global warming, why shouldnt we? )
The worm is beginning to turn.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:57 amReven, if you knew the level of deference the courts give to administrative agencies, you would be stunned at this decision. I was shocked. It’s a tremendous hurdle to get over!
I’ll be reading the decision after I get home tonight.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:58 amThe dissenters were the four riders of the apocalypse, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Roberts may be CJ but he still only has one vote.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:59 amAcknowledged, BnF, thank you.
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 pmI am counting the blessings, trying not to geek out over the road ahead…..;)
#22: “The judges who attended the seminar were from the Appealate Court, not the Supreme Court.”
That is what the post says. It didn’t say anything about SCJs attending the seminar.
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:01 pmComment by Briseadh na Faire — April 2, 2007 @ 11:49 am
Told ya, Rogerx2.
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:05 pm[…] the biggest Global Warming case to hit the highest court, the Supremes ruled 5-4 today that CO2 can be considered a polutant […]
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:06 pmfree market = all for me and f everyone else!
says something about those who promote it, doesn’t it?
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:07 pmPatrick1
It’s not a separation of church and state issue. It’s a Constitutional mandate, highlighted below.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:08 pmThanks, Raven. If you get a chance to read the Roberts and Scalia dissent, it is the road map for how Bush / EPA will be able to continue stonewalling.
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:09 pmPLC - I think Partick1 is alluding to the “cult” of environmental wackos, as Rush Limbaugh would say . . .
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:13 pmAlso, BTW, the adage you want to quote is, “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.†So, there, eat me.
Comment by Yachts and Lattes — April 2, 2007 @ 11:24 am
Great post Y&L give R2dumb2 hell!
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:16 pmThe “Roberts†Court also denied an appeal today from the Gitmo detainees. A federal appeals court in Washington in February had upheld a key provision of a law enacted last year that strips federal courts of their ability to hear such challenges. Read it here.
Comment by Charles — April 2, 2007 @ 11:34 am
HI JAKE
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:17 pmRight on! Hell yeah!
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:21 pmI think my brain is suffering from a long weekend. I just read RogerxRogers’ post.
And I can’t follow the arguement at all. Perhaps I should eat more fish? Read more economic theory? Study philosophy or history?
Would someone like to explain that comment in simple terms suitable for a Monday?
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:21 pmI especially enjoyed Scalia’s footnote 2: “Not only is EPA’s interpretation reasonable, it is far more plausible than the Court’s alternative. As the Court correctly points out, ‘all airborne compounds of whatever stripe,’ ante, at 26, would qualify as ‘physical, chemical, . . . substance[s] or matter which [are] emitted into or otherwise ente[r] the ambient air,’ 42 U. S. C. §7602(g). It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an ‘air pollutant.’ This reading of the statute defies common sense.”
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:21 pmWhat the hell? I am not JAKE. I already posted I agree with you guys on everything from global warming to Gonzales.
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:23 pmGood thing, but while they were at it, they snubbed the Guantanamo prisoners yet again. They will not be able to go to the courts to fight their illegal incarceration. SAD.
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:37 pmBut at least they voted for Bush on GITMO!
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 pmPLC - I think Partick1 is alluding to the “cult†of environmental wackos, as Rush Limbaugh would say . . .
Comment by Charles
Words games go both ways… hell word games go ALL ways…
Like the invade other countries cult…
Or the we hate all people with different skin color cult…
Or science still has not proven itself to be more accurate than religion cult…
Or Unitary Executive Cult…
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:50 pmGood thing, but while they were at it, they snubbed the Guantanamo prisoners yet again. They will not be able to go to the courts to fight their illegal incarceration. SAD.
Comment by doro
I dont think they should be in American courts… they should be sent to international tribunal of some kind.
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:51 pmExcellent news for the planet!
Bad day for Bush and Cheney and their “have more” constituency! Like I care… They’ve already taken more than their share.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:00 pm[…] Think Progress In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today issued a “stunning rebuke†to the Bush […]
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:00 pmThis administration has been laboring under the illusion that there is only ONE, not THREE branches of government entrusted with the power to run our country under our sacred constitution. I’ve been helping my 6th grader study for tests this grading period and it had occurred to me on more that one occasion that the “Separation of Powers” doctrine is being treated as a mere suggestion, not a mandate by Bush et al. Perhaps the actions of the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court this past week will send Mr. Bush and his friends back to the Sixth Grade government textbooks. They cannot unilaterally run this country any way they want.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:00 pmSo much for seperation of church and state.
Comment by Patrick1 — April 2, 2007 @ 11:57 am
That’s really funny (in a laughing at you sort of way), considering the fact that Heir Bush cannot keep his brand of religion out of every decision he makes.
The fact that the SC refused to remove the “Under God” and “In God We Trust” from the pledge and our currency - which was put there BY CONGRESS in 1954 -shows that church and union are even more cojoined than ever before…
You’re just a poor loser.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:03 pmI agree, ggibson, that word games cut both ways. I don’t know for certain that’s what Patrick1 was referring to.
Also, connie, I think Bush is trying to make a separation of powers argument when it comes to executive privilege at least.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:05 pmWould someone like to explain that comment in simple terms suitable for a Monday?
Comment by skeptic — April 2, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
Roger has gas…
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:05 pm#46 Also, connie, I think Bush is trying to make a separation of powers argument when it comes to executive privilege at least.
Yup, just not equal powers.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:32 pmHi unbelievable, good to see your comments again!
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:48 pmDoes this mean Bush can’t claim that the “Jury is still out on global warming”?
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:49 pmHi unbelievable, good to see your comments again!
Comment by doro — April 2, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Hi doro! Good to see you also. How are things in Switzerland? :)
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:58 pm#51
unbelievable
fine, fine, the swiss are still making money and I still don’t get any of it. So as long as I’m the stay-at-home-mom, I always enjoy commenting here and meeting nice people.
Have a nice day! Over here roundup time for the boys has come.
“Naaah, mummy only fiiiive minutes!”
See ya!
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:33 pm[…] in Bush Administration, GOP, Government, Environment, Science at 10:39 am by LeisureGuy Note the dissenters. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today issued a “stunning rebuke†to the Bush […]
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:35 pmAnd the Bush admin will ignore it.
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:41 pm[…] read more about the decision, check out the Massachusetts Attorney General’s page and the Supreme Court […]
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:12 pmCarbon dioxide released by man near ground level is heavier than air and sinks in air rather than rising up to the upper atmosphere to become a so-called greenhouse gas. While sinking, it stratifies from air. After sinking and stratifying, it tends to remain close to the ground and may find its way down to low-lying water bodies or down to ocean level where it can mix and react with water to form weak carbonic acid. Carbon dioxide is also removed from the lower atmosphere by rainfall.
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:56 pmDavid:
How can you tell the difference between carbon dioxide expelled by man vs. carbon dioxide breathed out by all other aerobic organisms? Almost all animals, most fungi, and several bacteria are obligate aerobes.
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:39 pmI wouldn’t take the Gitmo snub too harshly as yet. It looks like 2 Justices turned this appeal down on purely procedural issues. I haven’t had a chance to read the opinion yet…
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:57 pmAlso, David, even if replacing most present-day air travel with earth surface travel would have a significant effect on reducing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, what would the end of air transportation mean to the world’s economy? A recent Stern Report claims that the airline industry accounts for just 1.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but it accounts for 10% of the U.S. gross domestic product. You really think people want to go back to 3 weeks time to cross the Pacific Ocean? I assume this mean no more space travel too? These types of proposed solutions (based on the dire worse-case scenario) are giving mainstream environmentalists a bad name.
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:06 pmAlthough, I found this so maybe Singapore would appreciate your plan, as it could become the world’s new “seaport” hub:
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:22 pmI meant to include this link.
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:23 pmDoes this mean Al Gore has to stop flying as well?
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:24 pmI big, blowing smokestack right below Paris Hilton, thats pretty good TP.
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:52 pmDraw an imaginary line from the middle of the top of that smokestack, up to the next picture above, where is it pointing to? Is it just me?
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:54 pmStrange nation this!
The supreme court has to decide a common sense issue and does decide but passes on a vital human rights issue - and we are all kosher with that and see nothing wrong with it.
How sad that we cannot see the forest because of the trees.
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:02 pmThe RATS strike once more: (R)oberts, (A)lito, (T)homas, (S)calia.
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:03 pmOn my computer, Tom Aspell is the picture above the smokestack. That’s just gross!
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:03 pmThe smokestack is to the right of Tom Aspell, it goes right up to her crotch.
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:09 pmAlmost as gross. I think it’s just you.
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:21 pmYeah its just me. Phew.
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:24 pmNot only is Bush wrong about global warming, he is also wrong about not not following through on his promise to support the UN Millenium Development Goals to end poverty. I think more people need to get active and pressure our leaders to make sound decisions on behalf of us all. The European Union is taking sweeping measures to curb global warming; we can at least be more receptive to the views of the rest of the world!
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:32 pmeuni84 — Bush is not not following through on his promise to support the UN Millenium Development Goals to end poverty?
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:48 pmWhat are progressives going to do to stop chemtrails from destroying the environment? What exactly are they spraying us with?
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:52 pmYo Jonny,
It’s my understanding that you have a tinfoil hat on.
April 2nd, 2007 at 7:08 pmI haven’t noticed it getting any warmer in the past 20 years. Isn’t the ice cap on the southern polar cap thicker than it’s ever been?
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:55 pmRealists know this.
We are running out of natural resources at the same time we are suffering from population explosion and dramatic loss in habitation.
There were two ways to work with this inevitability.
1) The world in a spirit of sharing to avoid conflict would work out a plan to share diminished resources and at the same time find solutions to both controlling population and alternative sources of energy.
2) Do what we’ve always done. Seek out what we needed and crush with the use of deceit and brutal force any and all that would get in our way not really caring that the consequences that our actions would seal the world to a horribly, miserable fate.
We picked #2 - again. I’ve never been a big fan of mankind.
So, we’ve blown it. We crawled out of the cave and never let go of the club and we wound up beating ourselves to death with it.
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:14 pmJ.L Smith - You haven’t noticed a warmer climate?
Really? Do you live in a mall?
Let me give you something. I was around when “ecology” first made the evening news in the late 60’s. I helped start the Institute for Environmental Alternatives with it’s lead man Professor Ron Cone from the Northrop Institute of Technology.
Ron is a super genius. In confidence, way back when, he said this to a naive young man. “If we stopped polluting today we have already placed enough pollutants into the environment to dramatically alter life that will threaten the extinction of man in our lifetime.”
Since then man has done everything in his ability to make sure that happened.
And if you had watched 60 Minutes last night you would know that the ice cap has receded 9 miles in the last 30 years, with the last 4 miles in the last decade and speeding up expidentially.
Have fun at the mall.
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:36 pmI AM GLAD Justice Kennedy IS ACTING LIKE Sandra Day O’Connor AND BALANCING THE POINTY-HEADED NABOBS “Slick Bounder” Roberts, Alito “the leech,” “Crazy F*CK” Scalia and “Long Dong Silver” Thomas, FOUR OF THE WORST in-justices IN THE HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT—JUSTICE STEVENS, PLEASE HOLD ON UNTIL 2009 SO WE CAN PUT AN END TO CHIMPya’s DASTARDLY MACHINATIONS AND WORK TO RID THE COURT OF THESE FOUR MAROONS Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas—I HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO USE IMPEACHMENT TO GET RID OF THESE CREEPS, STARTING WITH Scalia—HE’S IN MY AND OTHERS’ SIGHTS!!!!!
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:57 pm“Long Dong Silver Thomas”
That’s hilarious. The guy had a 24 inch d*ck.
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:58 pm