Supreme Court clashes over climate change

highwayman

highwayman

New Member
One thing I cannot see is, why is it when the left cannot get anything the way they want it there is court case...

In effect what is being asked here of the court is to set enviromental policy, that is not the position of the courts. They are to settle disputes, not govern by making laws or enforcing policy of the other branches of government...



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c35d097e-7feb-11db-a3be-0000779e2340.html
The global political battle over climate change was also being fought at the US Supreme Court on Wednesday as judges bickered over the role of greenhouse gas emissions in global warming and disagreed on whether the Env**ir*on*mental Protection Agency had the power to refuse to regulate such emissions.
Click to expand...
 
This is a dispute. Geez man, did you not read the first couple paragraphs of your own article?


Massachusetts v EPA.

The left are the only people who care about the environment and the right never goes to court? Pull yourself together.
 
the state of Massachusetts, which insists that its coastline will be threatened unless the EPA steps in.
Click to expand...

Highway is correct in his assesment. THe feds are actually fighting against their own authority while Mass is saying the feds should do more.

The left, Massachusetts, wants a bigger federal government.

The right, in this case the Bush administration, wants the federal government to curtail their encroachment on states rights.

Shut down the EPA (gee, thanks Nixon) & have Massachusetts take care of their own coastlines.

Massachusetts brought the suit, backed by California, New York and several other states
Click to expand...
leftist government states.
 
spike said:
Massachusetts v EPA.
Click to expand...

The EPA is a federal government agency that is under the juristiction of the federal government, NOT the court system. If the dems had any say at all with the policies and laws that the EPA operate under they would not be making a squawk in federal court...

Massachusetts brought the suit, backed by California, New York and several other states, to try to force the EPA to regulate exhaust emissions from new cars. The EPA says it does not have the authority to regulate such emissions, under federal law. Even if it did, the EPA says, it would refuse to do so because of continuing uncertainty in the science of global warming and because unilateral US action could reduce America’s bargaining power in international negotiations on reducing emissions.
Click to expand...


If you bothered to read the article past the first two paragraphs you would have seen this one...

In case you don't know, every time you breath and use the toilet you and every other living creature on this planet emits green house gases, how do you propose to curtail those emmisions?
 
Gonz said:
Highway is correct in his assesment. THe feds are actually fighting against their own authority while Mass is saying the feds should do more.
Click to expand...

Oh hey, a dispute!

The left, Massachusetts, wants a bigger federal government.

The right wants wants bigger government (government involvement in personal matters like marraige. The left and right both want environmental responsibility. Except the irresponsible ones.

The right, in this case the Bush administration, wants the federal government to curtail their encroachment on states rights.

Bush wants more oil profits,which this would effect.

Shut down the EPA (gee, thanks Nixon) & have Massachusetts take care of their own coastlines.

Expan the EPA and give it more protection from from idiots like Bush.



Massachusetts can't take care of their own coastline when other states affect it
 
highwayman said:
The EPA is a federal government agency that is under the juristiction of the federal government, NOT the court system. If the dems had any say at all with the policies and laws that the EPA operate under they would not be making a squawk in federal court...
Click to expand...

Wrong, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all disputes even those involving the pres.



In case you don't know, every time you breath and use the toilet you and every other living creature on this planet emits green house gases, how do you propose to curtail those emmisions?
Click to expand...

How about we start where the most difference could be made the quickest? Or is that too obvious?
 
You mean you don't want Gonz to back up his musings on what Bush "wants".

I'm surprised :laugh:
 
spike said:
(government involvement in personal matters like marraige.
Click to expand...
Our government has been involved in marriage since the beginning. Nothing has changed.


spike said:
Bush wants more oil profits,which this would effect.
Click to expand...

Bush isn't holding any oil company stocks and for that matter, what the hell is wrong with more profits? That means the company is pleasing its investors.

spike said:
Expan the EPA and give it more protection from from idiots like Bush.
Click to expand...
Keep the government out of our life & we can take care of matters quicker & more efficiently.



spike said:
Massachusetts can't take care of their own coastline when other states affect it
Click to expand...
When the neighbors tree grows over your property, that part is yours. Good or bad.
 
Like it or not, the EPA's there to stop individual states (and their governors) from bending the enviro laws to suit whatever big business is in their state.

Politicians are short-term 'get myself re-elected' thinkers in general. If a coal-mining company tells them that they can hire an additional 1,000 people if the governor will only bend the rules a bit re: that leftist enviro-protection bullshit... what's to stop the governor from saying 'sure...go ahead' ?

The EPA. An entity that crosses state borders for the benefit of the whole country (and the world) is the only way to go. Leaving it up to short-term thinkers and bottom-liners is how we got to the enviro damage we're at now.
 
spike said:
You mean you don't want Gonz to back up his musings on what Bush "wants".

I'm surprised :laugh:
Click to expand...

WHy? It was in th estory

judges listened to a Bush administration official defend the notion that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should stay out of greenhouse gas regulation.
Click to expand...
 
Gonz said:
Our government has been involved in marriage since the beginning. Nothing has changed.
Click to expand...

The right wants more involvement (bigger government).


Bush isn't holding any oil company stocks and for that matter, what the hell is wrong with more profits? That means the company is pleasing its investors.
Click to expand...

Stocks? So? That means he's not in league with the oil companies :laugh:
Pleasing investors at the expense of the public is what's wrong.


Keep the government out of our life & we can take care of matters quicker & more efficiently.
Click to expand...

You've had a change of heart on the marriage thing them? Wiretapping?


When the neighbors tree grows over your property, that part is yours. Good or bad.
Click to expand...

So get rid of all federal government?

leftist government states.
Click to expand...

Our governor happens to be a republican.
 
Gonz said:
It is not a Constitutionally mandated branch & has been given authority where none exists.
Click to expand...

The idea of protecting the environment doesn't go back that far...it can't be a constitutionally mandated branch. :shrug:

If what an individual state did environmentally (icludes logging, mining, dams, fisheries, hunting, pesticides) was able to remain within that state, then you'd have a point... but it does affect neighbouring states. The analogy about the apple tree is cute but doesn't work here. Pollution isn't a positive aspect like free apples are.

Lets say that Oklahoma decides to allow a copper mining company to bend the rules a bit and use leeching close to the Red River, near Clarksville. The acids they're using go down to Arkansas and kill off some fish stocks and damage a few aquifiers. It's Arkansas' problem now?

Why in hell should Arkansas pay for Oklahoma's dirty little habit?

So..they make a complaint, Oklahoma takes it up with the mining company (who's not insured enough)..the company goes belly-up and the bill for the cleanup goes to??

The tax-payer. Enjoy paying for someone else's short-term thinking? So...if the EPA'd known and stopped the mining company BEFORE the damage was done...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top