SCOTUS Says EPA Can Regulate Carbon

ThanatosMinor writes "In a 5-4 decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, saying that the EPA's reasons for not doing so in the past were 'arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law.' The ruling does not require the EPA to regulate carbon. But concerns about global climate change and its ties to human activity did appear to be deciding factors in the case." The AP coverage stresses that the ruling upholds the right of states to sue the Federal government over issues of global warming.

Comments

Nine old guys (and gals)

[OakDragon]

What was it the abortion people used to say? What do nine old dudes in robes know about my body?

What do nine old farts (gender neutral term to keep up with the times) know about climate science? Apparently as much as Leonarda Dicaprio and John Travolta. Enough to be dangerous.

Re:Nine old guys (and gals)

[JeanPaulBob]

To my "IANAL" understanding, parents are certainly legally responsible to care and provide for their children, but children's responsibilities to their parents are somewhat...less than symmetrical.

Hmm. An amusing image just occurred to me, of parents suing their children for adversely affecting their financial well-being and causing stress and emotional turmoil...By the very fact of their existence.

It would be funnier if it were a bit further from being believable, though.

No change

[HomelessInLaJolla]

The Supreme Court is, as has been their policy for nearly 100 years, ignoring the greater question of jurisdiction while focusing on the lesser aspects.

Quote from the article's author:

I'm no legal scholar, but it sounds as if, by declaring that the EPA's case was weak, further defense of this matter (say in a future federal court case) would require either that the EPA come up with some compelling jurisdictional argument about why a substance in the atmosphere that could potentially harm humans isn't after all covered by the Clean Air Act I think the greater question is whether or not the Clean Air Act, or even the act which created the EPA, was Constitutional to begin with. The most direct example of this distinction can be found in a historical piece published by the NYTimes.

As Congress does not possess power itself to make onsetments relative to the persons or property of citizens of the United States, in a Federal Territory, other than such as the Constitution confers, so it cannot constitutionally delegate any such powers to a Territorial Government, organized by it under the Constitution. Parallel, As Congress does not possess power itself to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, other than such as the Constitution confers, so it cannot constitutionally delegate any such power to a federal authority such as the EPA, organized by it under the Constitution.

In 1857 the SCOTUS did the right thing, politically, by affirming that the Federal Government does not have sweeping jurisdiction over anything which can be remotely rationalized as commerce

The legal condition of a slave in the State of Missouri is not affected by the temporary sojourn of such slave in any other Sate, but on his return his condition still depends on the laws of Missouri.

As the plaintiff was not a citizen of Missouri, he, therefore, could not sue in the Courts of the United States. The suit must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. If the transportation of a slave across state lines wasn't eligible for interstate commerce in 1857 then what has changed since then? A Constitutional Amendment was required, even a Civil War wasn't enough, for the slave trade to be considered "commerce". Where does the EPA derive its power from?

While it is a Good Thing that the slave population was officially outlawed (nevermind the gaping hole in the 13th Amendment which allows for a simple jaywalking ticket to make a person eligible for slavery), it is a Better Thing that our government be reminded, as often as possible, of the limitations on its power.

It's really "The Courts"

[Ungrounded Lightning]

How is this Your Rights Online?

It's really "The Courts". (Unfortunately that seems to be lumped into YRO.)

How is it News for "Nerds" ?

  - It's regulation of tech.
  - It's related to science.
  - It's going to require major technological innovation.
  - It's likely to drastically affect nerds' ability to use technology and/or energy.

Just for starters

Re:Insightfull? - Mods, please RTFA.

[ukemike]

It surprises me how a website full of otherwise apparently intelligent people can display such ignorance.

The Bush administration has consistently governed favoring crony-ism, special interests, and religious wackos, instead of science.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/02/6 2339

The Court told the EPA that they had to DO THEIR DAMN JOBS, regulate greenhouse gasses, or provide a reasonable explanation why they won't. You see for years in the face of overwhelming evidence they have simply failed to act in accordance with the law.

On the other big topic of debate here, whether this qualifies as "news for nerds," not all nerds are monomaniacally obsessed with computers. Some of us are interested in science, which is a study of how the real world works.