• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Supreme Court, 5-4, Rules Against Administration in Global Warming Case

Uh-oh.... Julius George Dubya ain't gonna like that. But that's ok. It don't matter. It's just the judicial branch. They aren't anymore important than that pesky congress.

HE'S the PRESIDENT. All hail!

:allhail
 
Captain America said:
Uh-oh.... Julius George Dubya ain't gonna like that. But that's ok. It don't matter. It's just the judicial branch. They aren't anymore important than that pesky congress.

HE'S the PRESIDENT. All hail!

:allhail
Click to expand...

LOL

Okay, here is my guess on who falls under the "5" who ruled against the administration: Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and gool ol' Kennedy.

** Remember, I ran into Kennedy at the airport here in DC right after Thanksgiving and commented on the fact that my husband had sat through oral argument in an environmental case (but it was not THIS one) and he said to me, "Those environmental cases are tough cases."
 
Okay, here's an updated article. I was right about who dissented in the decision.

Rebuke for administration on emissions - Environment - MSNBC.com

On a separate note, the case I mentioned above, where my husband attended oral argument, the justices ruled on that case today as well--unanimously--9 to nothing in favor of the government's position againt Duke Energy Corp.

What's funny is that the US Court of Appeals in the Fourth Circuit had ruled against the government, and the Bush Administration was happy about that since it supported Duke Energy Corp (surprise surprise). EPA then passed regulations in response to the 4th Circuit's ruling, which was when the Supreme Court agreed to take the case. So while it appears that the Bushies supported this case, they did NOT. And the Justices ruled unanimously against Duke. Woo hoo!!!!!!

Here's some background on that case: Duke Energy, Environmental Defense in Supreme Court*fight - Nov. 1, 2006
 
Tis a good day. Bushnevicks over at Faux and all the other apologetic new sources are thinking desperately how to spin this one or how to pretend it hasn't happened - maybe they'll report some more on Anna Nicole Smith?
 
Since Bush is not running against you lefties are going to have to fight someone to kick around........Thompson, Juliani or McCain mught not be that easy......
 
Stinger said:
So some of the Justices now believe they are scientist.
Click to expand...

LOL Why don't you read their opinion. It has nothing to do with the science of Global Warming. :roll:
 
aps said:
LOL Why don't you read their opinion. It has nothing to do with the science of Global Warming. :roll:
Click to expand...

It's the "science" of GW that declare CO2 a pollutant, it is not. Once again the liberal court has substituted it's desires for the law.
 
Stinger said:
So some of the Justices now believe they are scientist.
Click to expand...

They no more believe it than the Bush Administration does. What makes the Bush Administration experts on the subject?
 
Navy Pride said:
We get one more Conservative and hopefully we can overturn a decision like this that just hurts private enterprise.......
Click to expand...
I would like to know what specifically in the ruling that you disagree with, please? Talking about "one more Conservative" instead of writing about the specifics of the ruling isn't really debating, is it?

How about you and I engage in a real debate on this specific subject. For example from the Times piece it says:

The tone of the majority opinion seemed to suggest that the E.P.A. would face a high barrier in arguing that greenhouse gases are not harmful. Justice Stevens alluded extensively to scientific findings in recent years attesting to the dangers of the gases, and he noted that the plaintiffs’ affidavits detailing those dangers were not contested.

The majority dismissed the E.P.A.’s argument that even if it did have authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, it could exercise its judgment in declining to do so. “Put another way, the use of the word ‘judgment’ is not a roving license to ignore the statutory text,” the decision stated.
Click to expand...
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/w...gin&adxnnlx=1175554681-JW+RVyw2EGarLOpJdl1lpw

So Navy Pride, would you please address this specific portion of the ruling and explain to us what you disagree with, exactly? Try not to patronize us with one sentence denials like you did above. Let's debate the subject, shall we?
 
Stinger said:
So some of the Justices now believe they are scientist.
Click to expand...

So, because they are not "scientist", the Justices should be barred from ruling on any scientific case, or anything at all having to do with the environment? Who should do it, then? Bush's phony science "experts"?
 
Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:
So, because they are not "scientist", the Justices should be barred from ruling on any scientific case,
Click to expand...

They should be limited to ruling on the law, not making declarations about science.
or anything at all having to do with the environment?
Click to expand...

The law.

Who should do it, then?
Click to expand...

The arena of public debate, where science decides, not judges. Then the legislature, those elected by us, can decide what if any actions should be taken. Then the Judges can decide it those actions are constitutional and nothing more.

Bush's phony science "experts"?
Click to expand...

The one that rely on facts and not supposition, the ones that don't follow phony science or GW swindles. Yes the ones that agree more with the Administration and not charlatans like Al Gore.
 
Stinger said:
It's the "science" of GW that declare CO2 a pollutant, it is not.
Click to expand...
That's a strawman. Science declares that Co2 is a greenhouse gas, not a pollutant.

Stinger said:
Who should do it, then?
Click to expand...
The arena of public debate, where science decides, not judges. Then the legislature, those elected by us, can decide what if any actions should be taken.
Click to expand...
And when they make that decision and you don't like it, you can claim that they ruled on a subject they weren't qualified to rule on. How convenient for you.
 
SO, now its the Supreme Court that is getting away from Bush just like the Repub congress is doing. Whos left siding with Bush? Seems no one with any common sense is sticking with Bush.
>>>"FACT FINDER GORE RULES"<<<
 
Binary_Digit said:
That's a strawman. Science declares that Co2 is a greenhouse gas, not a pollutant.
Click to expand...

The true science, that's why I put it in quotes. SCOTUS just declared it a pollutant based on their science.


And when they make that decision and you don't like it, you can claim that they ruled on a subject they weren't qualified to rule on. How convenient for you.
Click to expand...

And you can just claim that, how convenient for you. The fact is they based their decision on what they believe about GW, not the law.

BTW if water vapor makes up the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gases and hydrogen power cars emit water-vapor, and ethanol emits water vapor maybe we should ban cars form using those fuels?
 
Stinger said:
So some of the Justices now believe they are scientist.
Click to expand...
I don't think they made a scientific ruling, simply that it is the responsibility and legal authority of the EPA. I believe the justices are far more knowledgeable of the law than you or anyone here.
 
Stinger said:
It's the "science" of GW that declare CO2 a pollutant, it is not. Once again the liberal court has substituted it's desires for the law.
Click to expand...
Thus it is your opinion.
The science is clear, not only is CO2 a pollutant at high enough concentrations, as well as a metabolic waste, it is also toxic and can be lethal if there are high enough concentrations of it - if not, why the need for CO2 scrubbers?
 
Stinger said:
The true science, that's why I put it in quotes. SCOTUS just declared it a pollutant based on their science.
Click to expand...
:roll: Anyone's science that disagrees with your personal opinion isn't science.

Stinger said:
And you can just claim that, how convenient for you. The fact is they based their decision on what they believe about GW, not the law.

BTW if water vapor makes up the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gases and hydrogen power cars emit water-vapor, and ethanol emits water vapor maybe we should ban cars form using those fuels?
Click to expand...
Ethanol also emits CO2. Water vapor is in equilibrium with the environment, CO2 is not. Thing is we've been over this millions of times, and this red -herring of yours is nothing more but a distraction to derail the thread.

The ruling of the supreme court was
The EPA has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.
Click to expand...
Hence, unless you can provide a scientific basis against CO2 heat trapping ability, which the Bush administration controlled EPA has not been able to do, your argument is moot.
 
jfuh said:
I don't think they made a scientific ruling, simply that it is the responsibility and legal authority of the EPA. I believe the justices are far more knowledgeable of the law than you or anyone here.
Click to expand...


Actually Stephens said in his ruling that they couldn't find any damages or any standings to bring a lawsuirt but since this is such a serious problem they just decided to get involved and had to come up with something. It had nothing to do with the law, they have been taken in by the GW swindle.

Liberal activism at it's worst.
 
jfuh said:
:roll: Anyone's science that disagrees with your personal opinion isn't science.
Click to expand...

No, science based on fact and observation, not tweaked models.

Water vapor is in equilibrium with the environment, CO2 is not.
Click to expand...

:rofl you just make stuff up as you go along don't you. We know virtually NOTHING about how water vapor interacts with the environment. One of the reason the models are bogus, they don't know how to factor in water vapor.

Thing is we've been over this millions of times, and this red -herring of yours is nothing more but a distraction to derail the thread.
Click to expand...

Thing is you can't refute the actual scince. The fact is burning hydrogen puts out LOTS of water vapor, and water vapor is the leading greenhouse gas. If we are going to ban the little bit of CO2 being put out then surely we cannot have water vapor being emitted.

Is water vapor a pollutant?
The ruling of the supreme court was ...
Click to expand...

Since we think global warming is a problem we are going to issue a ruling even though we don;t believe anyone has any standing to sue.


Hence, unless you can provide a scientific basis against CO2 heat trapping ability, which the Bush administration controlled EPA has not been able to do, your argument is moot.
Click to expand...

Prove a negative.

The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.
Click to expand...

And that is the most absurd part of the ruling. They should have to prove a scientific base TO DO it, not the other way around.
 
Stinger said:
So some of the Justices now believe they are scientist.
Click to expand...

No more than some of the other Justices believing they are scientists when the issue is abortion.
 
Moderator's Warning:
All threads relating to Global Warming belong in the Environment & Climate Issues forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom