It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Weather, Climate, & Natural Disasters => Topic started by: trapeze on April 19, 2011, 10:33:24 PM
-
Found on FNC. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/19/supreme-court-hears-emissions-regulation-case/)
[blockquote]In the most significant global warming case to reach its front doors, a skeptical Supreme Court appears poised to block a major lawsuit brought by states and environmental groups against five large power companies for supposedly creating a public nuisance because of carbon dioxide emissions.
Tuesday's arguments revealed a high court bench that strongly questioned the ability of the states to bring the lawsuit and seemed to think that the federal government, through the Environmental Protection Agency, is the proper entity to regulate air pollution through the Clean Air Act.
"[T]he relief that you're seeking, asking a court to set standards for emissions, sounds like the kind of thing that EPA does. I mean, Congress set up the EPA to promulgate standards for emissions," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the lawyer representing the states and environmental groups. She went on to cast doubt on the propriety of a federal judge who lacks the resources and environmental expertise to regulate energy companies.
Picking up on that theme, Justice Samuel Alito asked "how does a district judge decide what is reasonable and cost-effective" when it comes to regulating alleged air polluters. And Chief Justice John Roberts addressed his concerns of how judges can determine costs and benefits. "I think that's a pretty big burden to impose on a district court judge," he said.[/blockquote]
You know you are in trouble when you can't get Ginsburg to be sympathetic to your liberal twaddle.
-
It gets ludicrous...
[blockquote]Justice Antonin Scalia was troubled by how five companies were singled out in the lawsuit. Underwood explained that targeted power plants are responsible for 10 percent of U.S. emissions. But that didn't go over well with Scalia who said, "You’re lumping them all together. Suppose you lump together all the cows in the country. Would -- would that allow you to sue all those farmers? I mean, don't you have to do it defendant by defendant?"
Underwood duly noted that cows could not be sued collectively or individually and suggested that rules could be created that would only allow lawsuits against the largest polluters.[/blockquote]
-
You know you are in trouble when you can't get Ginsburg to be sympathetic to your liberal twaddle.
::rolllaughing::
-
We are off the rails in so many regards here. This should not come before a court. Nor should it rest in the hands of the EPA. Nor should carbon emissions be regulated beyond the particulate matter emitted (pollution). Nor should there be an EPA.
-
I believe we have Nixon to thank for that one.
-
I believe we have Nixon to thank for that one.
Yeah , I like(d) Nixon but in retrospect he should probably get a pass on Watergate and a smack up the side of the head for the EPA .... All things being equal , that is .
-
I believe we have Nixon to thank for that one.
Yeah , I like(d) Nixon but in retrospect he should probably get a pass on Watergate and a smack up the side of the head for the EPA .... All things being equal , that is .
Yeah I think the latter sucks the big one, but the former ushered in the era of gotchya reporters and witch-hunting politicians so it's probably a push.
-
I believe we have Nixon to thank for that one.
Yeah , I like(d) Nixon but in retrospect he should probably get a pass on Watergate and a smack up the side of the head for the EPA .... All things being equal , that is .
You got that RIGHT