April 3, 2007

Yeah, I know...

I said I'd write about the global warming case. I'm too on vacation to get to it right now. There's a million articles about it. I've got to read the case to say anything worthwhile at this point. The longer you wait, the more you have to say in this blogging game. If you can speak in the first couple hours... or better yet, minutes... such freedom! Wait a day... it's work. And I'm on vacation.


Kirby Olson said...

Good things are worth waiting for. Meanwhile, I myself may have a chance to read the case in preparation for your analysis.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Kirby: Annalysis.

TMink said...

Looks to me as if there are two big questions: Should the court have even heard the case, and do they have any business hearing and ruling on this type of matter.

Where is the emminent harm? Were the requirements for a case even met by the state? And where is the constitutional question on how an established government agency does it's job in this case? This strikes me as a legislative matter.

But I am not learned in these things.


hdhouse said...


Hazy Dave said...

I'd be interested in a comparison of what the media is reporting about what the decison means, versus what the decision actually says.

hdhouse said...

Well both Hannity and ElRushbo said it "demon"strated the ruination of auto industry and a typical overreach by activist judges...both said that. I guess that part of the media got the same faxes.

RogerA said...

Volokh.com has discussion and links to other articles. Looks to me like the bottom line is that the judicial branch will be involved in environmental issues for the foreseeable future.

Ricardo said...

"... a typical overreach by activist judges ...."

Sorry, I must have been napping. Weren't we supposed to have fixed this with Roberts and Alito?

TMink said...

First, hdhouse, the "obviously" comment was brief, stinging, and made me laugh in spite of myself. Touche.

Second, my ill formed opinion was none the less spot on! What you showed in writing skill you lack in judicial analysis! To the point:


there you will find the following statement: "A threshold question was whether the Court even had jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place. Under Article III of the Constitution, plaintiffs must have “standing” before a federal court can hear their claims. This means that plaintiffs must show that they have actually suffered a concrete and particularized harm that the court has the power to redress."

So, perhaps I am a broken clock and thus correct only twice a day, but sadly for you, this was one of those two moments this 24 hour period.


vrse said...

Ms. Althouse, to the extent possible, please refrain from blogging the SCOTUS opinion, you've done enough to tarnish UW Law's reputation. Thanks!

hdhouse said...

TMink talked about the court having standing.

earth to TMink....the court looked at it and decided that it had standing, took the case and decided.

I'm sure you think they are wrong but they are on the top of the food chain...


Anonymous said...

I support Al Gore and his movie and book!


Seven Machos said...

Thanks hd and vrse for really bringing insight to the discussion.

hdhouse said...

well 7-nachos, isn't that what this is about?

on this and other threads there is a good deal of hand-wringing because the plaintiff "didn't have standing" and the court would toss it because they would (clearly) recognize the lack of standing. then pow.bang.biff.

they give their reasons why the plaintiff had standing and hence their involvement.

my comment pertained to the idea of what was an issue and perhaps to a few, a grave issue, became a non-redress issue because there is no higher entity to give the second opinion.

so try not to be snarky while we wait for Ann's comment.

TMink said...

HDH, read the opinions! Instead of pontificating, read what the top of the food chain wrote! Especially the minority opinions. Stop getting your news off CNN and learn a bit for yourself.

Now who has an informed idea? Where is Simon? I tire of the pretender.


hdhouse said...

TM - I did. If you not the other thread about it I posted the link to it several days ago as reference. Don't get yourself in such a knot.

MDIJim said...

So, EPA is now empowered and required to regulate the entire industrial economy unless Congress restricts its mandate. It will certainly take a while for EPA, especially under an unwilling administration, to get its act together on this. This delay will encourage more such suits. Because global warming is a real and acknowledged threat, politicians who talk about doing something cannot lose. They will lose, however, if they take any practical steps to reduce GHG emissions. The default would be to let the courts and EPA sort it all out. Serious regulation of GHG emisions will drive production to countries like China and India. In that case, look for Congress to legislate exemptions for favored industries. That's what's up with the automakers. They know they'll get a better deal from Congress than they would from EPA or a state like Massachusetts. If they can, the Democrats will even find a way to make regulation of GHG emissions by automobiles apply more stringently to foreign manufacturers.

TMink said...

Not in a knot pal, just looking for someone who will correctly read the posts here, read the decisions, and engage in some interesting discussion about them.

So I will give you another opportunity to do so. It is my nature. Do you agree with the majority decision? What are the salient points of the minority positions? Do you worry, as I, that hearing the case changes the standard that the court uses to accept cases?


Simon said...

I haven't forgotten about it. :) It's been a busy couple of days at work, but I've been working here and there on researching and writing a post going over the court's significant post-Lujan standing decisions and how Mass. v. EPA fits into that framework. So actually, the delay in (with deference to Ruth Anne) the appearance of the Annalysis is actually ideal from my perspective, since it's giving me a chance to get my ducks in a row. If she doesn't post 'til the weekend, that suits me just fine. ;)

This case isn't going to be going anywhere for a while, we've got time. Time was when a case got handed down, and the serious debate of its meaning didn't start for a full law review cycle or two - now it seems almost stale by the end of the same day!

TMink said...

Sorry Simon, I am new at this. But I would appreciate it if your posts were made more according to my schedule. 8)

I look forward to hearing your thoughts, and I look forward to hearing hdh's thoughts as well.


Simon said...

The question is going to be whether I (unlike the Supreme Court) can successfully resist the urge to reach the merits, and stay focussed on what really matters here, which is the standing question. ;) "I see the standing aspect of this case as far more concerning than the decision on the merits - the merits decision is a question of statutory interpretation and whether deference is owed under Chevron, and if the decision is wrong, it's easily enough remedied by a quick amendment to CAA. But standing is structural."

TMink said...

Well, the question you pose supports the question that I bumped into as well. Where are the injured? Who was hurt? What will happen now that the bar (heh heh) to pass before the court will hear a case has been lowered so? I mean, the 9th circuit ALONE will overwhelm the supreme court if more of their cases have standing.

I worry.

And I am still eagerly waiting to hear from HDH and his thoughts on the matter.


hdhouse said...

ahhh simple simple Simon...I actually read your posting on the SCOTUS Blog...imagine that..

And I wonder where you scraped your comment from....imagine that...

We disagree (obviously) because your guy Scalia sets your compass but Hamden and Mass are one in the same as far as the rationale for the gang of 5.

Think about it. It has to do with the ability of the Court to be involved as a co-equal branch AND the Court recognizing that the regulatory agencies are not "on again/off again" lemmings of the executive...which the legislative branch was until GOD BLESS the election.

The Court isn't above asserting its position in the balance of power and just maybe that is the message.

by the way, and i mean this kindly, your writing style is really really bad. i mean, really really bad. you'll gain a few more converts if you try and write with more clarity.

TMink said...

HDH, I keep waiting for some kind of cogent comment from you, and all I read are put downs. Some are really effective and stinking put downs, but that seems to be your one trick.

So the only comment you can come up with on the case is that Scalia's idea lost the vote? Nothing more than that? OK, I see the bit (just a bit) about balance of power of the branches, but even that is just a carrier for another put down. So two small ideas in sandwiched by put downs.

Is that the best you have?

For the record, I prefer Simon's writing style to yours. And whle I tend to agree with his content, he has thoughtful content. I am not sure that you are willing to take the time and effort to produce much.

By the way, I mean this kindly.


TMink said...

Oops, I meant to type "stinging" put downs, not "stinking" put downs. Freudian slip there, but support to how HDH really is quite good at put downs.