Bullshitting from the bench
Hey Folks,
When I was a kid I respected the judiciary, the courts, the so-called "Justice System," the Constitution, and our "elected" officials (our "Leaders").
I'm not a kid any more and Toto has had years of opportunity to pull back the curtain. Saying I don't respect ANY of that any more is putting it mildly.
Perhaps the last to go was my faith in the courts, which in turn eliminated any hope placed in the Constitution. Below is an AP report on a recent Supreme Court decision. The important points are only tangential to the actual matter adjudicated. Controlling emissions is crucial, but the readiness of the Supreme court of the land to decide matters of law and justice on the basis of politics rather than law, reality, the Constitution, or anything else is bigger yet.
Twelve states and thirteen organizations filed this suit asking three simple, important questions (see below). The positive decision came in 5 to 4, with - as the story characterizes them - the four "liberal" justices and the "swing voter" justice supporting the suit and the four "conservative justices" dissenting.
Well, folks, this is how it works: decisions are made on the basis of politics:
The Chief Justice of the Supreme court doesn't even address the issue at hand. He couldn't - not without blatantly demonstrating his political bent. He would have to argue that things are not what they clearly are.
So, instead, he claimed states and organization had no standing to come to court with their problem, that they should go to the legislative and executive branches for redress.
In other words, the legislature made the law; the executive interpreted and executed (or decided not to execute) the law; and if states and organizations believe the executive is misinterpreting the legislation, the court isn't the entity to determine that one way or another.
The states should, instead, go to the legislature and ask for a new law, and then if they believe the executive isn't following that law, they should go back to the legislature for a third law; etc., etc., etc.
The only thing that kept this idiotic dodge from succeeding was that Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas were one patrician zombie short. It wasn't the law, precedent, the Constitution, persuasion, or anything honorable. Every case they hear is decided before it gets its first lower court hearing; it's decided by the justices' politics.
Once a case gets to the Supremes, it isn't about the supposed issue at hand. It's totally about how the pre-ordained politically-based "decision" can be rationalized and justified to the public as something worthy.
- Uke Man
Top court: EPA can control emissions
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press
WASHINGTON - 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.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.
Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice
John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion.
The court's four conservative justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices
Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — dissented.
Many scientists believe greenhouse gases, flowing into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, are leading to a warming of the Earth, rising sea levels and other marked ecological changes.
The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the court agreed last year to hear its first global warming case.
"In many ways, the debate has moved beyond this," said Chris Miller, director of the global warming campaign for Greenpeace, one of the environmental groups that sued the EPA. "All the front-runners in the 2008 presidential campaign, both Democrats and Republicans, even the business community, are much further along on this than the Bush administration is."
Democrats took control of Congress last November. The world's leading climate scientists reported in February that global warming is "very likely" caused by man and is so severe that it will "continue for centuries." Former Vice President Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth — making the case for quick action on climate change — won an Oscar. Business leaders say they are increasingly open to congressional action to cut greenhouse gases emissions, of which carbon dioxide is the largest.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the Bush administration questioned whether it had the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant. "Now the Supreme Court has settled that matter for us, and we're going to have to take a look and analyze it and see where we go from there."
"We're going to have to let EPA take a good look at it, and they're going to have to analyze it and think about what it means for any future policy decisions," she added.
Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned. One way to reduce those emissions is to have more fuel-efficient cars.
The court had three questions before it.
_Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?
_Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?
_Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?
The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention that it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a "laundry list" of reasons that include foreign policy considerations.
The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.
"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Stevens said. He was joined by his liberal colleagues, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, and the court's swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The lawsuit was filed by 12 states and 13 environmental groups that had grown frustrated by the Bush administration's inaction on global warming.
In his dissent, Roberts focused on the issue of standing, whether a party has the right to file a lawsuit.
The court should simply recognize that redress of the kind of grievances spelled out by the state of Massachusetts is the function of Congress and the chief executive, not the federal courts, Roberts said.
His position "involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem," he said.
The decision also is expected to boost California's prospects for gaining EPA approval of its own program to limit tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Federal law considers the state a laboratory on environmental issues and gives California the right to seek approval of standards that are stricter than national norms.
The case is Massachusetts v. EPA, 05-1120.
When I was a kid I respected the judiciary, the courts, the so-called "Justice System," the Constitution, and our "elected" officials (our "Leaders").
I'm not a kid any more and Toto has had years of opportunity to pull back the curtain. Saying I don't respect ANY of that any more is putting it mildly.
Perhaps the last to go was my faith in the courts, which in turn eliminated any hope placed in the Constitution. Below is an AP report on a recent Supreme Court decision. The important points are only tangential to the actual matter adjudicated. Controlling emissions is crucial, but the readiness of the Supreme court of the land to decide matters of law and justice on the basis of politics rather than law, reality, the Constitution, or anything else is bigger yet.
Twelve states and thirteen organizations filed this suit asking three simple, important questions (see below). The positive decision came in 5 to 4, with - as the story characterizes them - the four "liberal" justices and the "swing voter" justice supporting the suit and the four "conservative justices" dissenting.
Well, folks, this is how it works: decisions are made on the basis of politics:
The Chief Justice of the Supreme court doesn't even address the issue at hand. He couldn't - not without blatantly demonstrating his political bent. He would have to argue that things are not what they clearly are.
So, instead, he claimed states and organization had no standing to come to court with their problem, that they should go to the legislative and executive branches for redress.
In other words, the legislature made the law; the executive interpreted and executed (or decided not to execute) the law; and if states and organizations believe the executive is misinterpreting the legislation, the court isn't the entity to determine that one way or another.
The states should, instead, go to the legislature and ask for a new law, and then if they believe the executive isn't following that law, they should go back to the legislature for a third law; etc., etc., etc.
The only thing that kept this idiotic dodge from succeeding was that Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas were one patrician zombie short. It wasn't the law, precedent, the Constitution, persuasion, or anything honorable. Every case they hear is decided before it gets its first lower court hearing; it's decided by the justices' politics.
Once a case gets to the Supremes, it isn't about the supposed issue at hand. It's totally about how the pre-ordained politically-based "decision" can be rationalized and justified to the public as something worthy.
- Uke Man
Top court: EPA can control emissions
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press
WASHINGTON - 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.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.
Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice
John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion.
The court's four conservative justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices
Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — dissented.
Many scientists believe greenhouse gases, flowing into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, are leading to a warming of the Earth, rising sea levels and other marked ecological changes.
The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the court agreed last year to hear its first global warming case.
"In many ways, the debate has moved beyond this," said Chris Miller, director of the global warming campaign for Greenpeace, one of the environmental groups that sued the EPA. "All the front-runners in the 2008 presidential campaign, both Democrats and Republicans, even the business community, are much further along on this than the Bush administration is."
Democrats took control of Congress last November. The world's leading climate scientists reported in February that global warming is "very likely" caused by man and is so severe that it will "continue for centuries." Former Vice President Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth — making the case for quick action on climate change — won an Oscar. Business leaders say they are increasingly open to congressional action to cut greenhouse gases emissions, of which carbon dioxide is the largest.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the Bush administration questioned whether it had the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant. "Now the Supreme Court has settled that matter for us, and we're going to have to take a look and analyze it and see where we go from there."
"We're going to have to let EPA take a good look at it, and they're going to have to analyze it and think about what it means for any future policy decisions," she added.
Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned. One way to reduce those emissions is to have more fuel-efficient cars.
The court had three questions before it.
_Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?
_Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?
_Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?
The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention that it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a "laundry list" of reasons that include foreign policy considerations.
The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.
"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Stevens said. He was joined by his liberal colleagues, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, and the court's swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The lawsuit was filed by 12 states and 13 environmental groups that had grown frustrated by the Bush administration's inaction on global warming.
In his dissent, Roberts focused on the issue of standing, whether a party has the right to file a lawsuit.
The court should simply recognize that redress of the kind of grievances spelled out by the state of Massachusetts is the function of Congress and the chief executive, not the federal courts, Roberts said.
His position "involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem," he said.
The decision also is expected to boost California's prospects for gaining EPA approval of its own program to limit tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Federal law considers the state a laboratory on environmental issues and gives California the right to seek approval of standards that are stricter than national norms.
The case is Massachusetts v. EPA, 05-1120.
1 Comments:
Uke Man -
There was a time when I believed in this great experiment called the United States of America, I'm old enough to remember when the checks and balances, if imperfect, actually worked once in a while.
Over the past 30 some years of my life, however, I've watched things deteriorate.
Once we were a nation of laws - now we're a nation of greed.
Nixon was a crook, but then came Carter - an honest and quite smart individual - (yes, I am ignoring Ford ...) - for a short period I actually thought that America might be back on track - but the press made fun of JC's honesty and personal sense of integrity, family and duty. In exchange we got Ronnie RayGun and it's been downhill ever since. Lies, backroom deals and influence, stacking the courts, stripping personal freedom, selling national and state assets to foreign interests, breaking unions, families and lives, starting wars have become the norm.
Why would I expect one of three major branches of the government to be any better than the other two?
This nation was born of revolution - and it'll come again - in spite of (or perhaps because of) legislation like the "patriot act" - it's just a matter of when.
Americans need to become disgusted by the ever shrinking pool of opportunity, of the lack of funding for education, for health care. Americans need to stop being satisfied that they can buy more cheap shit at Walmart and start thinking that perhaps it'd be better to buy less "stuff" - but buy higher quality products made here in the USA. People need to start to wake up and smell the (rancid) coffee -
In 2006 we thought we'd sent a mandate to Washington by electing Democrats rather than Republicans - all we did was to prove that there is no difference between the two parties - they're both formed of equally self serving, greedy asswipes. 2006 proved Phil Ochs to be a profit - just revisit his song "Love me I'm a Liberal" - where he sings "once I was young and impulsive, wore every conceivable pin, but now I'm older and wiser, and that's why I'm turning you in" .....
We need to change more than the faces in DC - we need to change the attitudes. And we need to stop offering our prayers and tithes to the lord Greed.
The "ins" aren't going to go quiet into that dark night - it's gonna be a hell of a fight - but it's gonna come - just a matter of when.
Peace
Steve
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home