From Reuters (h/t to reader John)
U.S. justices to hear challenge to Obama on climate change
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – In a blow to the Obama administration, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a challenge to part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s first wave of regulations aimed at tackling climate change.
By agreeing to hear a single question of the many presented by nine different petitioners, the court set up its biggest environmental dispute since 2007.
That question is whether the EPA correctly determined that its decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles necessarily required it also to regulate emissions from stationary sources.
The EPA regulations are among President Barack Obama’s most significant measures to address climate change. The U.S. Senate in 2010 scuttled his effort to pass a federal law that would, among other things, have set a cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
More..
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE99E0GB20131015?irpc=932
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Who knows what the ruling of SCOTUS will be. Probably will see some of the Justices sticking their fingers in the air, to see which way the winds of public opinion are blowing. (Sigh)
The whole agw crusade more and more reminds me of Atlas Shrugged. Maybe it will take an all out crash and burn before we come to our senses again.
Tom J: “From a legal standpoint that is, as stated, the Achilles heel for the EPA.”
From a logical standpoint. From a legal standpoint you can get away with anything as long as you hide your sophistries behind enough poetry about penumbras emanating from a contradiction. Or a thorough trip through the Humpty Dumpster redefining words.
But the real trick is to start with a sophistry as the premises and then extend it with further sophistries to the conclusion. Keeps the uncritical or motivated well in the land of Oz. The both of whom are convinced that clear thinkers are completely daft when the original sophistries are pointed out. After all, it’s settled law.
Gunga Din says:
October 15, 2013 at 1:48 pm
=============================================================
I might be wrong here but didn’t the court rule that, under the clean air act, the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 if it is a pollutant? That the problem is that the EPA declared it was without needing to prove it was? And no one is requiring them to prove anything?
*
Sounds about right, Gunga Din. I keep thinking, all it would take would be ONE judge to say, “What is all this evidence that CO2 is a danger and that it’s forcing the world to heat up? There must be plenty of evidence as it is quoted everywhere. I would like to see that evidence. Show it to me.”
I would like more people right across the board to ask for evidence. It will come, but right now I’m dreaming and I know it. In the future, though, when we look back on this event, the big surprising/shocking thing will be that very point – that no one in authority thought to ask to see the evidence (not counting those pesky evil skeptics of course).
Right now those in authority are trying hard not to reveal their ignorance (it’s difficult to stand up and say, “I don’t know – show me” when all around you seems up-to-date with the news and are pretending knowledge). But this is all getting so ridiculous now. People are waking up to it and getting angry. Politicians everywhere would be wise to see this and begin climbing down before fury takes charge of the mob.
Jquip says:
October 15, 2013 at 3:44 pm
Gunga Din: “I seem to recall that a law was passed that required EPA regs to pass a review by a scientific body.”
Assume that’s true. Now assume that Climatology is a science.
=============================================================
I’m not ready to assume that until it has been proven to be science and not politics. The models don’t bode well for the CO2-based science. CO2-based politics has done better than is good for any of us.
Scotus said that the Obamacare penalty was a tax, so I do not expect much …
I doubt that the elite Supremes in their Washington world have much knowledge of the real world or of the effect of their rulings. Thus, I see little room for optimisim.
Could be better if the EPA wins in the long run. If the EPA is overruled then they will try to push this through congress which will become a bigger issue with every politician having to take a public stance. Politicians will just go with whatever’s popular because politicians want votes which means more alarmists get elected.
At this point the issue is so big we need to let the news sink in slowly. As it is most people and politicians simply don’t care, and those that know its junk science are under the radar. We may need to follow Australia’s example and elect someone President in a few years (after even more papers show the science as junk and sensitivity low) and let him quietly dismantle the whole CO2 regulation business while this issue fades away.
Everard: “I would like more people right across the board to ask for evidence.”
They’ve been asking, and the evidence is routinely shown. That is, the sheep knuckles thrown by the ensemble mean of the models. Now we can be a bit Neanderthal and state that it should be empirically demonstrated utility and validity of the fortune telling all we like.
But that’s not part of practical science anymore. And really cannot be unless you’re willing to discard a huge numbers of theories and research subjects. Which is, perhaps, the greatest ignorance in wedding the law to science. When philosophers of science state that unproven and unprovable, even unmeasurable, notions are science if scientists simply like the notion. (Formalized by Popper, but goes back earlier.) then ‘science’ is completely indistinguishable from Random Religion A. It’s a bunch of people that like some idea, but aren’t terribly concerned with that whole ‘proof’ idea.
Does anyone have the links to the specific public documentation associated with this case?
I would really like to read the complaint for specifics of subject matter.
We would know better if climate science is on a precipice or not. Just remember the ruling that was not expected from the Obamacare case. The rule of law does not follow perception/expectation sometimes.
It is not often that this type of thing gets challenged at this level. 6 years running, no?
The ramifications could be very significant to the future of policy and the science associated with such. Exposure may be at hand.
I know there are many legal professionals who visit this site. Step up and share! :-}
“Maybe China has perfected a form of mind control…”
“Manchurian Candidate” starring Frank Sinatra & Lawrence Harvey.
The movie was banned from being shown on TV for many years, after JFK’s assassination.
shenanigans24 says:
October 15, 2013 at 4:25 pm
——————————-
The EPA is not elected. They don’t get their approvals via congress for new regulations that I know of… They answer to nobody but the courts on policy and regulations. They are currently implementing a form of cap and trade that is pushing up energy costs via a pollution status of CO2 ,essentially on their own as directed by the Whitehouse.
Activism via regulation. IMHO
“Activism via regulation. IMHO”
When you’re talking about law, punishment and sin taxes, based on anti-empirical notions of virtue, vice, and various apocalyptic scenarios? You’re talking about the establishment of a state religion by some no name department housed in the broom closet next to the boys room.
The EPA regulations are among President Barack Obama’s most significant measures to address climate change.
No,
The EPA regulations are among the totalitarian elites’ most significant measures to gain control over … almost everything… where “elites” is a relatively small set of ego and power driven individuals … that does not include the elite wannabes, the bureaucratic (do what gets me a promotion) tools, and certainly not the army of absolutely ill informed emotive propaganda targeted useful idiots who too often are your next door neighbors…
Lance Wallace says:
October 15, 2013 at 10:58 am
You wrote: “If the basic definition as a regulatable pollutant is allowed to stand, then it will be hard to argue that the pollutant is different somehow when emitted by stationary rather than mobile sources.”
++++++++++++++
By the good logic you present, all 320 million people in this country must be regulated. That is, there must be a limit to exercise… it drastically increases the CO2 we breath out, same with taking walks, singing… and everything we do including sleep. Fatter people are net stores of CO2 and so, we need reward people who gain weight and therefore sequester that dreaded pollutant from the air. Do I really need a sarc tag here?
As Daniel Yergin wrote today in the Wall Street Journal:
Despite enormous growth in the U.S. economy since 1973, oil consumption today is up less than 7%.
The crisis also set the stage for the emergence of new importers that have growing weight in the global oil market. In 1973, most oil was consumed in the developed economies of North America, Western Europe and Japan—two thirds as late as 2000. But now oil consumption is flat or falling in those economies, and virtually all growth in demand is in developing economies, now better known as “emerging markets.” They represent half of world oil consumption today, and their share will continue to increase. Exporting countries will increasingly reorient themselves to those markets. Last month, China overtook the U.S. as the world’s largest net importer of oil.
OssQss says:
“The EPA is not elected. They don’t get their approvals via congress for new regulations that I know of… They answer to nobody but the courts on policy and regulations. They are currently implementing a form of cap and trade that is pushing up energy costs via a pollution status of CO2 ,essentially on their own as directed by the Whitehouse.
Activism via regulation. IMHO”
I’m aware, but if they lost then Obama would try to push the regulation through Congress where it would be legal.
“EPA!!! EPA!!! A thousand eyes !!! A twisted tail” EPA!!! EPA!!!” – Grandpa Simpson
Lady Life Grows. Was moved by your post. The vast majority of people that post here are skilled with language, but that was truly authentic. Well done. Although my approval is irrelevant, I still wish it to be known. Cheers.
Does anyone remember seeing this?
He is honest in this example, for once.
http://youtu.be/HlTxGHn4sH4
Let’s say the Plateau continues for 100 more years. It’s certain that the Court will find that the 2007 case was discredited by subsequent empirical evidence, and overrule it.
Ditto if it continues 50 more years.
Ditto if it continues 25 more years.
Very likely if it continues 12 more years.
Maybe if it continues 6 more years.
If it noticeably cools during those periods, the tipping point would be even closer.
See the amicus curiae brief for the plaintiffs in the suit against the EPA at the CFACT website.
@more soylent green –
Obama isn’t clueless – he IS setting out deliberately to destroy the economy.
Obama is determined to establish a one-party dictatorship and crush the Republican Party altogether. This is why he is being so stubborn about Obamacare – it’s a crucial part of the infrastructure he intends to use to exercise dictatorial powers (the other legs of this are the IRS, NSA and EPA). It also explains his war on coal and on cheap energy in general. As others here have pointed out, controlling carbon is controlling every detail of people’s lives
Obama often comes across as an airhead, but that’s part of his strategy, to lull opponents into thinking he’s weak. Hitler thought and operated the same way. Obama’s tactics closely parallel Hitler’s: lying shamelessly and repeatedly; intimidating political opponents, making law without the legislature; manipulating elections (intimidation by his IRS against the Tea Party is what “won” him the 2012 election); creating an artificial crisis – the government shutdown, much like Hitler’s Reichstag fire; and ordering people killed without trial (four American terror suspects and several of their family members, including children, executed by drone strikes).
Obama, like Hitler, is driven by deep-seated hatreds and similarly lacks inhibitions concerning acting on those hatreds. His creed is Jeremiah Wright’s “God damn America,” and he is acting on it. He knows full well that his agenda will destroy the country, and that is exactly what he wants.
The loss of jobs and working hours due to Obamacare is NOT an unintended consequence – it was foreseen and calculated, and is a key part of Obama’s scheme to destroy the middle class, to reduce it to poverty and dependency. Another part of this is the grossly excessive premiums (which actually are mostly taxes, not going to care providers) and deductibles in Obamacare, which will take huge bites out of people’s incomes.
And of course there is his energy policy – the sky-high electricity prices he boasts of achieving, and high energy costs generally, will reduce many from middle class to poor, both directly and by killing millions of jobs. He throws his billionaire crony capitalist buddies like George Soros and Jeffrey Immelt the bones of profiting from “renewable” energy, just as Hitler let Krupp and I.G.Farben keep their monopolies in Germany.
If he isn’t stopped I believe it is possible that Obama may soon do things like issuing executive orders to shut down Fox News, the climate skeptic blogs like WUWT, and other dissidents. I believe he might attempt to cancel the 2014 elections and declare himself president for life, like Chavez did in Venezuela. He is certain to have studied closely what Chavez did. And it is clear to me that neither the courts – especially the Supreme Court – nor Congress have the will to put a stop to him.
I hope like hell that I’m wrong about all of this.
OssQss says:
October 15, 2013 at 8:07 pm
When it’s good news, Obama is lying. When it’s bad news, Obama is telling the truth.
What you REALLY have to worry about is all that stuff he’s saying nothing about.
OssQss says:
October 15, 2013 at 8:07 pm
Does anyone remember seeing this?
+++++
I love showing this to liberals who swear Obama is doing his best to keep down prices of energy. Then I show them the information related to his energy secretary Chu at the time… where he specifically says that the problem is that until we have gasoline prices as high as they are in Europe, Americans will not do the right thing. Uggh! And they still don’t believe me that energy is under attack so that so called renewables would look more palatable.
Lady L. G.,
— Good information! While it is too late to help those filing the petition for a writ of certiorari or the amicus briefs in support of the petition (they were filed last May or so), you may be able to help with oral argument preparation (or prep. for future cases).
1. Petitioners: Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc. (website: http://www.southeasternlegal.org/) filed the petition (view here: http://www.southeasternlegal.org/storage/SLF%20et%20al%20v.%20EPA%20SCOTUS%20Petition%20for%20Writ%20of%20Cert%20Filed%204-19-13.pdf)
Counsels of Record include:
EDWARD A. KAZMAREK
KAZMAREK GEIGER & LASETER LLP
One Securities Center
3490 Piedmont Road, N.E., Suite 350
Atlanta, GA 30305
(404) 812-0839
Co-Counsel for Southeastern
Legal Foundation, Inc.
HARRY W. MACDOUGALD
CALDWELL & WATSON, LLP
Two Ravinia Drive, Suite 1600
Atlanta, GA 30346
(404) 843-1956
Co-Counsel for Southeastern
Legal Foundation, Inc.
SHANNON LEE GOESSLING
Counsel of Record
SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL
FOUNDATION, INC.
2255 Sewell Mill Road,
Suite 320
Marietta, GA 30062
(770) 977-2131
Shannon@southeasternlegal.org
Counsel for All Petitioners
STEVEN G. BRADBURY
DECHERT LLP
1900 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 261-3483
Co-Counsel for Southeastern
Legal Foundation, Inc.
(There are more listed in Petition, but this is just for your convenience)
2. Go to the SCOTUS site and find out who filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the writ of certiorari by Southeastern in this case. On the first page or so, the attorney of record’s name and address are given.
3. CFACT was one of the amicus curiae brief filers:
http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/15/supreme-court-accepts-challenge-to-epa-emissions-regulations/#sthash.T6c0kEqr.dpuf
From the CFACT brief, the attorney of record’s information:
Paul D. Kamenar
Counsel of Record
1629 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 603-5397
paul.kamenar@gmail.com
*******************************
I hope this answered your question to the point that you (and others from WUWT, too!) be able to get your powerful facts and excellent research to the attorneys as you said you wished to do.
Here is a reprint of my mock interview with (former) Energy Secretary Steven Chu:
Tongue in cheek, but I think it captures the essence . . . .
WOZNIAK: Mr. Secretary, how will your proposal to raise gasoline prices to $10 a gallon benefit low-income Americans?
CHU: It will save the planet for their grandchildren.
WOZNIAK: But Mr. Secretary, a lot of low-income people are raising their grandchildren right now and just barely getting by. If these grandparents have to pay so much for gasoline, how will they be able to afford to feed their grandchildren and heat and light their homes?
CHU: Uh, the price of eggs in China is the important issue here. It’s been going up because of global warming.
WOZNIAK: Mr. Secretary, please answer the question.
CHU: I did, and you are out of order.
About says it, methinks – Moniz is no different.