The Newest Lib Attempt to Rule via the Courts

[rushmc 18]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c35d097e-7feb-11db-a3be-0000779e2340.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nathaniel 0]

Wait, which side is the liberal one?

The one that wants to take liberties with the environment, or the one that wants to conserve it?

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[billvon 2,400]

> Wait, which side is the liberal one?

The one who said he "will work to . . .establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide."

[wuffo2 0]

Quote

> Wait, which side is the liberal one?

The one who said "[I] will work to . . .establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide."

Interesting little read on CO also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide

[Andy9o8 0]

Q: Oh, when will they learn that barfing out "Lib!!!" is no substitute for independent thought and reasoned discourse?

A: Probably never.


Move along.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Wait, which side is the liberal one?

The one that wants to take liberties with the environment, or the one that wants to conserve it?

what's nice is that is doesn't matter - only who's proposing what and how it's presented.... content doesn't matter, only PR and PC

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c35d097e-7feb-11db-a3be-0000779e2340.html

Well, don't courts 'rule' on questions of law? Don't they issue 'rulings'?

So, what's your problem then? Afraid birth defects might be reduced or your grandkids will have cleaner air?

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[rushmc 18]

Ya, I want dirty air and water

what a bunch of shit for a statment....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Ya, I want dirty air and water

what a bunch of shit for a statment....

Yeah, it is. As much as "the Libs all want..." statements are a bunch of shit. See how it works?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Ya, I want dirty air and water

what a bunch of shit for a statment....

Yeah, it is. As much as "the Libs all want..." statements are a bunch of shit. See how it works?

You see this as the same???? and I did not say all the libs

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>Well, don't courts 'rule' on questions of law?

Yes. When it is a decision someone likes, this is called "the process of judicial review." When it is a decision someone dislikes, it's referred to as "activist liberal judges legislating from the bench."

[lawrocket 3]

This case is not as illegitimate as one might think. A similar thing is being litigated right now in federal court in Fresno. In 2002, California passed a law that gave authority to the California Air Resources Board to regulate tailpipe emissions. In 2004, the CARB adopted regulations that were designed to lower tailpipe emissions. Several other states have followed California's lead.

The automobile industry sued. California sought a dismissal. Judge Ishii ruled that it does conflict with federal laws that reserve the power to regulate these emissions to the federal government. Interestingly, Judge Ishii also ruled that the automakers' arguments about the effect on interstate commerce were not valid.

So, we see a couple of things. You've got California trying to regulate what is apparently a federal resposibility. In the orignal post, you've got Massachusetts trying to get the feds to do something because they cannot.

At least I find it interesting.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Ya, I want dirty air and water

what a bunch of shit for a statment....

Addressing the FIRST part, what do you propose that se do to combat dirty air and water?

As to the second part, there have been many times I thought your arguments were a bunch of shit, but decided to rebut them, rather than calling them shit. That's how we LIBS do it, mostly.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 2,400]

>You've got California trying to regulate what is apparently a federal
> resposibility. In the orignal post, you've got Massachusetts trying to
> get the feds to do something because they cannot.

Yeah, that's one thing I don't get. In the California case, the feds are arguing that only the federal government can regulate CO2 emissions. In this case, they seem to be arguing that the federal government CANNOT regulate CO2 emissions.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

This case is not as illegitimate as one might think. A similar thing is being litigated right now in federal court in Fresno. In 2002, California passed a law that gave authority to the California Air Resources Board to regulate tailpipe emissions. In 2004, the CARB adopted regulations that were designed to lower tailpipe emissions. Several other states have followed California's lead.

The automobile industry sued. California sought a dismissal. Judge Ishii ruled that it does conflict with federal laws that reserve the power to regulate these emissions to the federal government. Interestingly, Judge Ishii also ruled that the automakers' arguments about the effect on interstate commerce were not valid.

So, we see a couple of things. You've got California trying to regulate what is apparently a federal resposibility. In the orignal post, you've got Massachusetts trying to get the feds to do something because they cannot.

At least I find it interesting.

Intersting ! Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

>You've got California trying to regulate what is apparently a federal
> resposibility. In the orignal post, you've got Massachusetts trying to
> get the feds to do something because they cannot.

Yeah, that's one thing I don't get. In the California case, the feds are arguing that only the federal government can regulate CO2 emissions. In this case, they seem to be arguing that the federal government CANNOT regulate CO2 emissions.

I seem to recall a few years back there were a couple BASE jumping cases in court. In one case the government (NPS, I think) was arguing that BASE was illegal because a parachute is not an aircraft, while simultaneously, in the other case, arguing that BASE was illegal because a parachute was an aircraft.

IIRC, I read about these cases in Skydiving.

At any rate, the double talk on the CO2 issue does not surprise me.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

At any rate, the double talk on the CO2 issue does not surprise me.

I think Scalia summed up the position of the naysayers best when he said:

"Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I'm not a scientist," ............. "That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth."

Nothing restores faith in our judicial system like a Supreme Court Justice sticking his head in the sand.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

In the California case, the feds are arguing that only the federal government can regulate CO2 emissions. In this case, they seem to be arguing that the federal government CANNOT regulate CO2 emissions.

A couple of points. First, welcome to law 101.

Second, in the first case the feds are NOT arguing that. It's the auto industry versus the State of California. The feds are not involved. Also, the arguments are related, but not the same.

In California, the question is whether California's regulation of emissions is pre-emptied by the Federal Government's exclusive right to regulate CAFE standards. The automakers are arguing that emissions and fuel economy go hand in hand - you cannot regulate vehicle emissions without incidentally regulating fuel economy. Regulating fuel economy is is the exclusive province of the Feds via the Federal Energy policy and Conservation Act, 49 USC 32901 et seq. This created the corporate average fuel economy ("CAFE") standards.

49 U.S.C. §32919(a) provides, "When an average fuel economy standard prescribed under this chapter [49 U.S.C. §§ 32901, et seq.] is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards for automobiles covered by an average fuel economy standard..."

So, the automakers are arguing - successfully so far - that the emissions standards violate that section because they become de facto fuel economy standards, which would conflict with federal CAFE standards.

The Feds aren't making this argument - private entities are against the state of California. The feds ain't in on this.

---

Meanwhile, in the Massachusetts suit, the argument is that the Feds are NOT regulating AIR QUALITY. The questions are whether the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7521(a)(1), and if so, whether the EPA can decline to issue emissions standards for motor vehicles under that law.

Quite simply, this case is first about standing (feds claim that Mass can't demonstrate enough of an effect to prove harm from EPA's inaction, which I believe means that the court's opinion woul dbe advisory).

Second, the main substance is about statutory construction. The EPA says that the statute does not give the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases under that law, and cites as evidence other laws that specifically address greenhouse gases. They say monitoring CO2 under using the mechanisms set up would be impossible because CO2 does not fit with other pollutants.

Basically, the EPA is saying, "When Congress tells us we can, we will."

So, they are different arguments on different topics.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Nothing restores faith in our judicial system like a Supreme Court Justice sticking his head in the sand.

I give him far more credit that a judge acting like his head isn't in the sand and making decisions based on whim and caprice.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,625]

So Scalia is not interested in the science. I don't think scientific acumen is part of the qualification for being appointed to the Supremes.

Does this matter? To what extent is this case a matter of law, and to what extent a matter of science?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Nothing restores faith in our judicial system like a Supreme Court Justice sticking his head in the sand.

I give him far more credit that a judge acting like his head isn't in the sand and making decisions based on whim and caprice.

I don't have the time right now to discuss this at length, but I find Scalia – a lot more than many other SCOTUS justices in my lifetime (possibly even more than Rehnquist) to be a strict ideologue who (IMHO) pre-judges cases based on personal philosophy and then crafts the reasoning to support his pre-ordained conclusions. In other words, I find him intellectually dishonest. All judges do it to one extent or another, but I find Scalia does it to an extreme. I have great respect for his intellect, but little respect for his intellectual integrity. To me, there's little practical difference between that and making decisions based on whim and caprice.

[billvon 2,400]

So auto manufacturers are arguing that the feds have exclusive control over fuel economy (and therefore emissions) without the feds being involved at all? Interesting.

[lawrocket 3]

I find Scalia to be difficult to figure out. I disagree very often with what Scalia decides. My problem is that when I read his opinions, dammit, they make a lot of sense. Logically, Scalia makes less stretches than other justices in his opinions. If he is working backwards, he is doing a damned good job of it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So Scalia is not interested in the science. I don't think scientific acumen is part of the qualification for being appointed to the Supremes.

Does this matter? To what extent is this case a matter of law, and to what extent a matter of science?

In terms of this court, science shouldn't mean a damned thing. The reason is that the SCOTUS is not the forum to be making findings of fact. The science is an evidentiary function designed to assist the trier of fact. The trial court judge makes rulings on the admissibility of the scientific evidence.

The only this the court must look at is whether, as a matter of law, enough evidence has been brought to state the case. The SCOTUS shouldn't be weighing the evidence - that's already been done by the trial court. Given the trial court's ruling, then the Court should use that finding of fact to determine whether it causes enough of an impact under the statute to make it actionable.

For example, let's say the trial court found that tailpipe emissions account for 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Let's say that the statute says that "significant" levels of CO2 must be regulated. Now, the trial judge made a finding that the amount is not significant. The appeals go from there. The SCOTUS must determine whether the judge below did a good job of it, but should not be issuing edicts that there is a significant amount of CO2 in the atomsphere than needs to be regulated.

Also, the court may use the scientific evidence on the issue of damages. I.e., if there is no evidence of damage caused by tailpipe emissions, then there can be no finding of fault or wrongdoing requiring action. That would be advisory, since prospective harm can only be stopped in special circumstances.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Nothing restores faith in our judicial system like a Supreme Court Justice sticking his head in the sand.

I give him far more credit that a judge acting like his head isn't in the sand and making decisions based on whim and caprice.

Yea, it's so much easier to be a judge when you've already made up your mind. You get to appear strong, and assertive, unwaivering...you know...almost presidential by today's standards.