1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

SCOTUS: CO2 & other greenhouse gases are pollutants

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by 2muchcoffeeman, Apr 2, 2007.

  1. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Active Member

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070403/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_greenhouse_gases_29

    Vote was essentially along party lines.
     
  2. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    It's a sad, sad day in this country when the EPA is being forced by the Supreme Court to protect the environment.

    WTF?
     
  3. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    It's a sad, sad day when you have to go to the freaking Supreme Court for a determination that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

    Anyone who doesn't think it is would be advised to spend a half hour breathing the stuff and come back here and report your findings.

    What's next? Is the SCOTUS going to have to decide if rain is wet?
     
  4. Pastor

    Pastor Active Member


    I believe that this will go to trial in the middle of May.
     
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    What's more ridiculous is that the Supreme Court is even involved in this. Why not just declare it a third, unelected legislative branch and get it over with? It ain't about acting as a check to make sure the constitution is adhered to anymore. Hasn't been for a long, long time. The fact that they could even take on a case like that and hand down a ruling like that with a straight face, when it is a legislative issue, not a constitutional issue, should be evidence to everyone how perverted the three branches of government have become.
     
  6. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    Justice Scalia goes off the record at a petroleum lobby luncheon, expounding on the nature of his dissenting opinion.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
  7. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    While I (sort of) see your argument here, Ragu, practically, who else is going to settle a dispute between a state and a federal agency?

    If the Mass. Supreme court hands down the decision, the current admin. will simply tell the EPA to ignore.
     
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    The point is, this is why we have elections. It's why we have a democracy. Those elected state and Federal officials are supposed to make decisions as our representatives. There was never supposed to be a supreme council that makes things right when some people thing they are making the wrong decisions. You go the voting booth and express yourself if that is how you feel. And even if there was supposed to be some council that stands above our elected officials, in a democracy, it wouldn't be the random rulings of nine unelected people.

    The Supreme court was meant to exist for one reason--to make sure the laws enacted don't violate the provisions of the constitution. There wasn't anything about this that was remotely a constitutional issue. And it's not the place of the court to play administration or legislature. That is why we elect presidents and senators and congressmen.

    It's sad that our system has been perverted to this extent. What's even sadder is that what you are seeing now is that with the court being so politicized, they can legislate one thing via their decisions today, and in a few years when there is a new politicized court, they can just as easily do the opposite. We've seen that happening since the Warren court. What about the constitution changed? Nada. Just the political agendas of the nine particular people sitting there with life terms.
     
  9. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Isn't there a legal argument to be made, though, that disputes among states and federal agencies are de facto constitutional issues and, therefore, must be settled by the SC?

    Again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your position, but it does seem that you're looking at it from a doctrinaire point of view and ignoring the other argument that could e made.
     
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    This wasn't a 14th Amendment kind or states rights issue. Wasn't argued that way (had no reason to be) and wasn't applied that way. Read the ruling. This was about them creating a set of arbitrary standards NOT spelled out anywhere within a mile of the constitution and applying them to the executive and legislative branches. I'm not arguing with the ends. I actually have big problems with the EPA. But the point is that that EPA's charter falls under the legislative and executive branches, not the judicial branch. They just made up new law. That is revolting. Why should I bother voting if my government isn't representative--nine unelected people with life terms can just make up laws as it pleases them and render my vote meaningless.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page