cromagnum Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/26/scotus.e...t.ap/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/26/scotus.e...t.ap/index.html 714247[/snapback] "Fundamentally, we don't think carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and so we don't think these attempts are a good idea," said John Felmy, chief economist of the American Petroleum Institute That's right up there with the gems from the tobacco industry. Still and all...it's a toss-up what SCOTUS should rule (they'll rule "for" oil and "against" "big government", of course). On legal grounds...there's recent precedent for saying the EPA can regulate emissions, but no real codified legal statement saying it's within their scope, as far as I know. On environmental grounds...who gives a sh--? The SCOTUS shouldn't be making decisions based on environmental science, I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 It is very likely they could decide this on the issue of standing - which is how the SCOTUS has ruled on various past environmental cases. The plaintiff's must show that they (or their members) have suffered real "damage." I think the standing issue will be this Court's way out of addressing the merits. That's disappointing, because the merits are interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts