Obama administration sides with utilities in Supreme Court case about climate change

[BurtWorm]

:wtf:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082606632_pf.html

By Steven Mufson
Thursday, August 26, 2010; 9:09 PM

...

Administration officials said the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory moves to restrain carbon dioxide emissions made the lawsuit unnecessary, and the acting solicitor general asked the Supreme Court to return the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

But environmentalists said that the administration had talked about - but not imposed - limits on emissions from existing power plants.

...

The case dates to 2004, when eight state governments, the city of New York and three land trusts sued the Tennessee Valley Authority and five other utilities burning fossil fuels to generate electricity. The plaintiffs said the utilities' greenhouse emissions posed a "public nuisance" because they contributed to climate change. They asked the court to order the utilities to reduce emissions "by a specified percentage each year for at least a decade." Although they lost in district court, a two-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit ruled in their favor on Sept. 21, 2009.

The administration has weighed in on behalf of the TVA, a federal agency. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal argued that the EPA was using its authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, an authority it won in a case decided in April 2007. He said that the agency's actions since the 2nd Circuit ruling last year had changed the situation. He cited fuel-efficiency standards, an EPA finding that carbon dioxide posed a danger and initial steps toward regulating emissions at new or rebuilt power plants.
...

[nightrain]

1. knr. so sad. This administration lacks courage to do the best for the country/world...

Is it about not wanting to threaten their campaign donations? again??!!??

[Me.]

2. It Just Keeps Getting Worse & Worse With The Obama Administration

[Igel]

4. No. It's consistent.

Most of the complaints about Obama boil down to protecting federal authority and freedom to act. Should the court rule for the states, the federal government will have a smaller "space" in which to act, in which to regulation. It's effective sphere of authority will be reduced.

This isn't an Obama-specific problem. * had the same problem, but in slightly different areas. So did Clinton. Bush I. Reagan. Carter. Nixon. Johnson. Kennedy. The executive branch has seldom wanted a smaller grant of authority where the chief executive thinks the executive branch should rule.

Nor is it an executive-specific problem. The SCOTUS derives its authority from the Constitution, which gives Congress the ability to limit SCOTUS' jurisdiction over matters governed by the Constitution. But the last time there was a limitation placed on it, SCOTUS took the initiative to shift the entire matter out from under the Constitution, where it had been discussed and decided, to extra-Constitutional arguments and simply ignored Congress.

Congress, on the other hand, is all about protecting their bailiwick. You see it when Jefferson's arrested for corruption by the executive branch under a protocol approved by the judificial and immediately conservative Congressfolk defend him. They may police their own, but, dammit, nobody else is going to if they can help it.

All of this is just to say that all of the above-mentioned folk are human. We love laws that benefit us (or those we empathize with), we hate laws that hurt us (or those we empathize with); such laws in helping us/our serve but to promote the common good. In this, we declare ourselves to be utterly common.

[Me.]

5. You Mean Like Protecting Federal Authority To Warrantless Wiretap?

[sandnsea]

3. Why would a company adhere to EPA regulation

If a court rules that common law has more standing than federal regulation.

This is a tough case.

[amborin]

6. horrible! where is the leadership on climate change?