Re: [asa] Not April Fools

On Apr 2, 2007, at 10:43 AM, PvM wrote:

> In preparation for the release of the IPCC report, the Supreme Court
> handed the environmental movement, and may I say, the citizens of the
> US and beyond, a nice present
>
> <quote> WASHINGTON, April 2 (Reuters) - In a defeat for the Bush
> administration, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a U.S.
> government agency has the power under the clean air law to regulate
> greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming.
>
> The nation's highest court by a 5-4 vote said the U.S. Environmental
> Protection Agency "has offered no reasoned explanation" for its
> refusal to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions from new cars
> and trucks that contribute to climate change.
>
> The ruling came in one of the most important environmental cases to
> reach the Supreme Court in decades. It marked the first high court
> decision in a case involving global warming.</quote>
>
> The majority observed that
>
> <quote>Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court majority,
> rejected the administration's argument that it lacked the power to
> regulate such emissions. He said the EPA's decision was "arbitrary,
> capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law."</quote>
>
> Scalia, probably somewhat tongue in cheek, observed that
>
> <quote>Scalia said the court ``has no business substituting its own
> desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible
> agency.''</quote>
>

That doesn't sound tongue in check to me. David, what is your opinion
on the EPA case? According to my layman's eye this appears to be a
straightforward administrative law case and thus wouldn't have much
precedent. The refusal to regulate according to the court can only be
based on science and "reasoned justification". The court did not
force the EPA to regulate but it did force it to make that reasoned
judgment and circumscribed how that judgment could be made. The one
thing that appears precedent setting is the concept that damage from
global warming can give standing. But, even that conclusion is
probably over-reaching since the court only said that one of the 13
plaintiffs, Massachusetts, met the normal three-part test of
standing. Justice Stevens then invoked federalism to get extra
deference to Massachusetts as a sovereign state to have it rise to
the standard. Thus, any further lawsuits will probably need to be
done by one of the Attorneys General. Bottom line: this is a very
narrow ruling and the victory for environmental activists is more
political than legal.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 2 23:10:57 2007