The rightwing US supreme court has climate protection in its sights

[turbinetree]

Laurence H Tribe and Jeremy Lewin
Mon 28 Feb 2022 06.08 EST

The court is breaking with precedent, procedure and prudence to achieve the ultra-conservative majority’s policy preferences

Granting a petition by several states and coal companies, the supreme court on 28 February will address what appears to be a technical legal question: does the Environmental Protection Agency have authority to calculate CO2 emissions targets for power plants based on mitigation techniques involving steps “beyond the fence-line” of individual plants? In truth, the matter the court is considering implicates –and imperils – the federal government’s power to fashion flexible solutions not only to global warming but to all manner of complex problems.

The stakes are higher still: by ruling on the case at all, the court usurps power constitutionally entrusted to government’s politically accountable branches. Article 3 of the constitution limits federal courts to deciding concrete “cases and controversies” about the rights of individual parties. Yet this “case” involves neither a concrete dispute nor the specific rights of any of the challengers. Instead, it’s akin to an exam question about the options theoretically available to a federal agency to address a grave problem. In answering that hypothetical question, the court will have arrogated to itself an unprecedented, open-ended power to reshape the nation’s social and economic landscape – far in excess of its legitimate authority, as the foundational case Marbury v. Madison put it, to “declare what the law is”.

The court has avoided such a wide-ranging role ever since our founding, when Chief Justice Jay refused President George Washington’s 1793 request for legal advice about America’s obligations under treaties with France and Britain, concluding that issuing such an “advisory opinion” to guide the nation’s foreign policy would exceed the court’s constitutionally assigned power. The underlying axiom is neither liberal nor conservative but universal. As Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court just last term, “federal courts decide only ‘the rights of individuals’ [and] do not possess a roving commission to publicly opine on every legal question.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/us-supreme-court-rightwing-climate-crisis

Two things come to mind about this court....do they know what acid rain is and...

When are they going to get a petition to attack social security and medicare....

[Crunchy Frog]

1. This was the real agenda all along.

The culture wars and reversing Roe were only about stirring up the rubes and getting their votes.

It was always really about ending all regulation of corporations, and having a RW SCOTUS able and willing to act as a virtual dictator.

[Lovie777]

2. Well that nutso guy by the name of Robertson said GAWD compelled . . .

madman Putin to attack Ukraine and subsequently in turn will somehow destroy Israel all of which will conclude for "end days" so therefore the fucked up 6 justices' decision will be moot.