Court: Feds Can Regulate Car Emissions

[cal04]

Source: Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer

Supreme Court Concludes That Government Has Authority to Regulate Car Greenhouse Emissions

The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.

Read more: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070402/scotus_greenhouse_gases.html?.v=1

[terip64]

1. Do I dare say progress? n/t K & R

[Warpy]

2. A stunning defeat for the administration

who will now have to answer to the board and execs of inconvenienced manufacturing giants.

Expect them to fight tooth and nail to get legislation passed to overturn this.

[MikeDuffy]

3. Anybody know some details about pro/con split?

Especially which justices (if any) were anti-regulation?

[Jim__]

7. 4 justices voted against it.

Can you guess their names?

Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.

[havocmom]

4. OK, does this mean the Feds can force a lower standard on states like California?

Looks good at a glance, but I don't think the patsies in robes are our friends. Is this gonna be the tool to negate high standards some states have imposed?

[cal04]

5. ThinkProgress and Scotusblog

UPDATE: Some background: the case emerged in 2003 after the EPA rejected a petition calling for the federal government to restrict emissions of greenhouse gases — most notably, carbon dioxide. The EPA’s general counsel argued in a memo that “ and other , as such, are not air pollutants,” and “substantial scientific uncertainty” still exists about the effects of carbon dioxide on the environment.

The statement meant the Bush administration would not have to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld this view. (The Washington Post would later report that “two of the jurists who helped decide the case” had “attended a six-day global warming seminar…sponsored by a free-market foundation and featuring presentations from companies with a clear financial interest in limiting regulation.”)

Twelve states, three major cities, and several environmental groups appealed the decision, arguing the case “goes to the heart of the EPA’s statutory responsibilities to deal with the most pressing environmental problem of our time.”

UPDATE II: The court also ruled that Massachusetts has “a right to sue to challenge EPA on the climate change issue.” SCOTUSblog has more.


http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/04/epa_must_consid.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/02/supreme-court-rules-against-bush-in-global-warming-case/

[LiberalFighter]

6. Judges should not be attending these seminars!!

Have these judges attended seminars advocating the rights of workers to belong to unions?

Have they attended seminars advocating the rights of voters to vote?

Have they attended seminars sponsored by consumer organizations?

[happyslug]

8. Direct link to the opinion

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf

[orleans]

21. thanks for the link! n/t

[Heidi]

9. Kick.

:kick:

[orleans]

10. UPDATE 1-US Court Rules Against Bush in Global Warming Case

Source: Reuters

"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.

snip

"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."



Read more: http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2007-04-02T150516Z_01_N02421970_RTRIDST_0_USA-WARMING-COURT-UPDATE-1.XML

---

more at link!

[jpak]

11. Great news

:thumbsup:

[Bleacher Creature]

12. Hmmm...I wonder who the four dissenters were??

Not.

Elections matter. Period.

[genieroze]

13. That's who, are you surprised?

The court's four most conservative members -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both appointees of President George W. Bush, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- dissented.

[Ninja Jordan]

14. Way to go Justice Kennedy!

[Kolesar]

15. Sierra Club statement on Supreme Ct global warming decision

High Court Rules Against Bush Administration
in Sweeping Victory in Fight Against Global Warming
5-4 Ruling Stops EPA from Putting Politics Ahead of Science


(Washington, DC)--In a huge victory in the fight against global warming the
Supreme Court today issued a ruling in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA
decisively rejecting the Bush administration's inaction on global warming.
In a 5-4 vote, the High Court sided with the Sierra Club, 12 states, 3
cities, and the other petitioners in the case by agreeing that carbon
dioxide and other global warming pollutants can be regulated under the
Clean Air Act (CAA). Additionally, in a separate 5-4 ruling, the Justices
wrote that the EPA cannot refuse to regulate these pollutants for political
reasons. The Court gave its overwhelming stamp of approval to states that
are taking action to fight global warming. At a time when automakers are
suing states for taking this step forward, the Supreme Court stated clearly
that states have the right to protect their citizens and the environment.
It also provides momentum for efforts in Congress to reduce vehicle
emissions.

"Today's ruling is a watershed moment in the fight against global warming,"
said Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director. "The ruling is a total
rejection of the Bush administration's refusal to use its existing
authority to meet the challenge posed by global warming. It also sends a
clear signal to the markets that the future lies not in the dirty, outdated
technologies of yesterday, but in the clean energy solutions that will fuel
the economy of tomorrow. It also vindicates the leadership that California
and other states have taken on this issue."

In the majority opinion, the Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other
global warming pollutants meet the definition of "air pollutants " under
the plain language of the CAA. This ruling, in and of itself, does not
compel EPA to issue regulations limiting the emissions of global warming
pollutants. However, the CAA states that EPA "shall regulate" any air
pollutant "reasonably anticipated" to endanger "public health or welfare,"
which includes effects upon "climate or weather." Since EPA incorrectly
argued that carbon dioxide was not an air pollutant under the CAA, it
refused to even issue an endangerment determination. Today's ruling
compels EPA to issue such a determination.

"It's unfortunate--but not surprising--that it took a Supreme Court case to
clarify the meaning of words such as 'pollutant,' 'endanger,' 'weather,'
and 'climate' for the Bush administration," commented David Bookbinder,
Sierra Club's Director of Climate Litigation. "The only way EPA can
continue to refuse to do its job and not regulate global warming pollutants
is by claiming that the effects of global warming pose no danger to the
public. Bush's EPA may try do so, but I suspect they'd be laughed out of
court."

The Court's secondary ruling compels EPA to follow the CAA provision that
states that EPA "shall regulate" any air pollutant that it determines is
reasonably anticipated to pose a danger to public health or welfare. EPA
had made a wide variety of specious arguments claiming why, even if they
had the authority to regulate global warming pollutants, it could simply
choose not to do so. Today's ruling compels EPA to adhere to the
unambiguous language found in the CAA. The CAA already affords the agency
wide latitude in its rulemaking process--specifically stating that any
potential regulations must meet tests for economic and technological
feasibility.

"EPA pursued a kitchen sink strategy by throwing a variety of arguments at
the Court about why it could simply choose to ignore the law and come up
with its own political criteria for deciding what is a pollutant and
whether or not to regulate it," said Bookbinder. "This ruling simply sets
into motion the process to establish the kind of regulations for global
warming pollutants that have successfully regulated other pollutants for
decades without the kind of dire economic effects predicted by
industry."

Today's decision will impact numerous other cases currently working their
way through the courts. It will most directly affect the Coke Oven Task
Force v. EPA case currently pending in the Federal Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. Both that case and Mass. v. EPA hinge on the
same question of EPA's authority under the CAA. The ruling will also
affect challenges brought by the auto industry against the Clean Car Laws
enacted by California and 13 other states. California and the other states
derive their authority to enact stricter standards from the same passage of
the Clean Air Act at issue in Mass. v. EPA, so the High Court's ruling
should strengthen the states' hand in cases pending in California and
Vermont.

"Cities and states have been taking the lead on global warming action for
the past years," said Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director. "Today's
decision will help protect those hard-fought victories from spurious
attacks by polluters and other special interests."

Today's ruling does not affect the ability of Congress to address global
warming through new legislation. Congress remains free to amend the Clean
Air Act or pursue alternative legislation to limit global warming emissions.

"Considering the often glacial pace of rulemaking at EPA and the Bush
administration's long-professed opposition to mandatory carbon limits, any
new regulation coming out of EPA is likely to be years in the making unless
the administration moves quickly to establish a weak regulation favorable
to the biggest polluters," said Bookbinder. "The next administration will
probably be largely responsible for implementing the Court's decision."


Environmental Defense v. Duke

The second decision issue today, also in an environmental case, upheld
EPA's view that changes in power plants that may contribute to air
pollution must be done only with a permit if there is an annual increase in
emissions. The Court rejected the Fourth Circuit Court's view that the
permit requirement applied only if there is an hourly increase in
emissions. The case was Environmental Defense Fund v. Duke Energy Corp.
(05-848). The decision was written by Justice Souter. The vote was
unanimous, although Justice Clarence Thomas filed a separate concurring
opinion.
-----
For a complete set of documents related to Mass v. EPA, see:
http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/lawsuits/0316.asp

[tinfoilinfor2005]

16. Kick

and Rec!!

[harun]

17. Supreme Court: EPA can regulate vehicle emissions

Source: USA Today

The ruling is a total rejection of the Bush administration's refusal to use its existing authority to meet the challenge posed by global warming. … It also vindicates the leadership that California and other states have taken on this issue," he said.

The overall tone of the 5-4 decision, written by the liberal wing of the court, showed concern for global warming and respect for the worries voiced by Massachusetts and other states about diminished coast line and other atmospheric problems associated with warmer temperatures.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/supremecourtopinions/2007-04-02-epa-emissions_N.htm?POE=NEWISVA

---

This decision surprised me. I don't agree completely with their justifications but the end result is a favorable one. This sends a strong message to the EPA that they better actually protect people, and the environment and not just the Presidents policy.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

18. Large headline right now on MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post, NYT.

I believe CNN's headline stated something like, "Supreme Court defeats Bush."

HOW SWEET IT IS!!

On edit, exact headline:

Bush Administration Loses Global Warming Case.

[happyslug]

19. Duplicate Topic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2790478

[kenny blankenship]

20. Remove John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito

This world cannot survive their ideology for much longer.

[Maestro]

24. Yes, it surprised me too.

I did not see this one coming. It is getting a lot of press. This is a bit of progress too bad it didn't force corps to limit carbon dioxide emissions.

[Orsino]

22. No, they can't.

Big Money won't let them.

[onehandle]

23. This is a major defeat for Ralph Nader...

...who helped enable Bush to place half of the dissenters on the court.

[Kolesar]

25. surprised that this story does not have more recommendations...eom

[Heidi]

26. Kick.

:kick:

[hyphenate]

27. Justices Rule Against White House on Emissions

Source: New York Times

By DAVID STOUT
Published: April 2, 2007

WASHINGTON, April 2 — The Supreme Court ruled today, in what amounts to a rebuke of the Bush administration, that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide from automobile emissions, and that it has shirked its duty in not doing so.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the court found that the Clean Air Act expressly authorizes the E.P.A. to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, contrary to the E.P.A.’s contention, and that if the agency still insists that it does not want to regulate those emissions, it must give better reasons than the “laundry list” of invalid considerations it has offered so far.

Today’s decision is surely not the last word in the continuing debate over the effects of global warming and what can, or should, be done about it. But it was still highly significant in at least two respects.

First, the majority brushed aside the Bush administration’s assertion that the Clean Air Act does not treat carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases as “pollutants,” and thus does not give the E.P.A. the authority to regulate them.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/washington/02cnd-scotus.html?ex=1333166400&en=2fb79f232def704b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[indepat]

28. No matter how egregious, at least four Supremes are going to vote uber-extreme-right wing,

damn the torpedoes, reasoned judgment and the Constitution.

[Kolesar]

35. the "Gang of 13" compromise just got us two Petroleum Industry Shills on the high court...eom

[Fresh_Start]

29. The idiot bloc on the SC is gonna be a problem for a long time

I hope that their decisions come back to bite their own families

[HereSince1628]

30. Nah, a Democratic controlled WH and Congress just need to raise

the number of Justices serving on the SC. In my mind 3-4 more would be enough.

[reprobate]

31. All the more reason to impeach Scalia and Thomas for the appointment to the

Presidency of George W. Shitforbrains.

[RamboLiberal]

32. Hope the moderate members of the SCOTUS can hold

on for 21 more months. This is one huge reason we need to get a Dem in the WH and keep a Dem majority in the Congress!

[Omaha Steve]

33. High Court Rebukes Bush on Car Pollution

Source: AP


High Court Rebukes Bush on Car Pollution
Email this Story

Apr 3, 2:09 AM (ET)

By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration Monday for its inaction on global warming in a decision that could lead to more fuel-efficient cars as early as next year. The court, in a 5-4 ruling in its first case on climate change, declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

The Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate those emissions from new cars and trucks under the landmark environment law, and the "laundry list" of reasons it has given for declining to do so are insufficient, the court said.

"A reduction in domestic emissions would slow the pace of global emissions increases, no matter what happens elsewhere," Justice John Paul Stevens said in the majority opinion. "EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change."


California Attorney General Jerry Brown gestures while commenting on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that affects global warming at a news conference in San Francisco, Monday, April 2, 2007. The Supreme Court Monday ordered the federal government to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming. In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the court agreed last year to hear its first case on the subject, with many Republicans as well as Democrats now pressing for action. However, the administration has argued for a voluntary approach rather than new regulation.



Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070403/D8O8UVIG0.html

[Kolesar]

34. other LBN story

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2790478