California sues EPA over blocked emissions law.
By on Jan 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
California sues EPA over blocked emissions law.
The state of California filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today, contesting the decision last month by administrator Stephen Johnson to deny the state the right to regulate greenhouse gases from vehicles. The lawsuit, which is expected to be joined by other states, will challenge “the Bush administration’s conclusion that states have no business setting emission standards.”
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
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
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
Can I submit an amicus curiae?
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm’states have no business setting emission standards.’
Even when the Feds sit on it for years & years? It’s interesting, but predictable, that ‘States’ Rights’ are supported my many Rebumlicans but only when it suits their agenda.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 pmCan I submit an amicus curiae?
Comment by RUCerious — January 2, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
—-
I think you may have to be admitted to the bar in California.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:01 pmI thought conservative politics supported states rights. Did Bush change that also? Besides destroying our country, it seems Bush is trying to destroy the ‘conservative’ brand name too.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:03 pmgood
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:06 pmWhy wasn’t this done when the original standards were established by California in the late 1990’s early 2000’s? They were bought off by the oil and car companies to change their standing. (Watch “Who Killed the Electric Car.”) I suspect the end result will be about the same.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:18 pmBush long ago destroyed the conservative brand with the neoconservative meshing with what was once a recognizable brand but now one that totally makes me cringe. No difference whatsoever.
Bush destroys all he touches. Has he ever been successful in any endeavor (other than to ruin the US government, make the average US citizen poor and at risk…for that, he was wildly successful in).
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:19 pmBush to States: You have the right to remain silent.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:21 pmWho Killed The Electric Car was an amazing film. And I agree with your assertion that little will happen. That said, CA has always gone to the beat of its own drum so I hope they can manage to do something constructive. They felt the affects of emissions long before other states did and actually have tried to do something.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:21 pmYeah, it’s the Bush administration whose ‘bu$iness’ is to set emission standards. That seems to be the problem (and not just with this issue); protecting business instead of, in this case, ENVIRONMENT.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pmI think you may have to be admitted to the bar in California.
Comment by deebaser — January 2, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
That’s good news, I’ve been admitted to lots and lots of bars in Cali…
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:24 pmIf the feds were actually setting standards, that might be a valid argument, but for them to say, “Hey, that’s our job” , when they aren’t doing it, well, it’s just downright trollish of them.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 pmEven when the Feds sit on it for years & years? It’s interesting, but predictable, that ‘States’ Rights’ are supported my many Rebumlicans but only when it suits their agenda.
Comment by Zimzone — January 2, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
The “states rights” claim was only used for the right to discriminate in the case of race and keep “coloreds” from voting, anyway.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:31 pmBush not being successful?
He was very successful with the bottle. Drank a lot, damaged his brain, and became president of the US.
I guess all voters were drunk when they elected him.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:39 pmCan I submit an amicus curiae?
Comment by RUCerious — January 2, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
—-
I think you may have to be admitted to the bar in California.
Comment by deebaser — January 2, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
———————-
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Even though most amicus curiae briefs are filed through legal counsel, I have been unable to find anything that says an American Bar Association member HAS to do the filing. However, an amicus curiae brief won’t have much value to the case unless it’s written with some knowledge of the law at hand.
RUCerious could hire a lawyer to file an amicus curiae brief, although he should be aware that a case like this will probably attract a flood of them. He could also write a brief himself and file it if he has the legal expertise to do so — although I recommend he stay out of the California bars until it’s written. A clear head works best.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:41 pmI think you may have to be admitted to the bar in California.
Comment by deebaser — January 2, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
That’s good news, I’ve been admitted to lots and lots of bars in Cali…
Comment by RUCerious — January 2, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
————
Hey – yo
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:00 pm**rimshot**
I believe the federal government did act on good faith with California. Instead of granting CA a waiver, the feds passed most of what CA wanted in a federal law, so that CA would be getting most of what they want at a much lower cost to CA consumers, since the changes for each automaker would be scaled to a national market, not just the CA market.
The feds do NOT have a case that no state can regulate their own emissions, but the feds DO have a case that in this instance, they did grant CA what they wanted in a much more economical way.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm