Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumScientific Ignoramuses On The Supreme Court Set To Decide If US Gov Allowed To Act On Global Warming
EDIT
This reality doesnt seem to have penetrated the high courts marble walls. In questioning Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar about the extent of the EPAs statutory authority, Justice Samuel Alito twice denied the reality of the climate emergency. What weight do you assign to
climate change, which some people believe is a matter of civilizational survival? And in a follow-up question, he again framed dangerous climate disruption in hypothetical terms, stating that he didnt see how considering costs of regulation would limit the EPAs authority if you take arguments about climate change seriously, that this is matter of survival. (Emphases added.)
In these statements, Alito acknowledges that, if you believe the scientific consensus that there is a climate crisis, then it would be illogical to fail to respond because the costs of human suffering would dwarf any costs incurred by the fossil fuel industry. Thats no doubt true, but as Prelogar deftly explained in response, there are significant statutory limits on the EPAs ability to regulate regardless of the enormity of the air-pollution problem the agency seeks to address. The larger, more important, point here is that Alito is apparently not among those people who view climate change as a global existential crisisand, tragically, hes also a justice about to render a decision about the extent of the EPAs climate authority.
So will Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who has also engaged in climate-crisis denialism. During her Senate confirmation hearing, she refused to accept that climate change is happening and is threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink. Rather, she suggested that the question was inappropriate. When asked by then Sen. Kamala Harris whether she considered coronavirus to be infectious, cigarettes to be carcinogenic, and climate change to be real, Barrett responded: You have asked me a series of questions that are completely uncontroversial
and then trying to analogize that to elicit an opinion
from me on a very contentious matter of public debate, and I will not do that. Alarmingly, Barretts characterization suggests that she would deem many regulations aimed at responding to the climate crisis as attempts to address a so-called major question that agencies are supposedly without authority to address. In recent shadow docket opinions, Alito, Barrett, and the four other conservative justices struck down rules of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration providing COVID-19 protections on major-questions grounds, in part due to the controversial nature of COVID-19 response measures. According to Barretts previously articulated position, this line of thinking could also be applied to climate protections.
In a recent commentary, I detailed the problems with the courts grant of certiorari in West Virginia v. EPA and with the conservative justices specious use of the major questions doctrine to strike down agency authority in the COVID-19 cases. In short, the danger of their use of the doctrine is that, under the guise of requiring that Congress answer the question rather than agencies, the court, the least accountable branch, in effect answers the question in favor of no action.
EDIT/END
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/03/supreme-court-climate-skeptics-barrett-alito.html
bucolic_frolic
(43,181 posts)in2herbs
(2,945 posts)doctors and lawyers specialize, so why not the court? For instance, one specialty would hear only environmental issues, one for civil rights/voting, one for children and women's rights issues, another for criminal issues, etc. Any person appointed to the USSC would be appointed to a department based on their specialty and hear only those cases.
For example, expand the court to 15 justices, create five specialties, and move/appoint three justices in each specialty.
If it takes an act of Congress to reorganize the USSC maybe we could start with the federal court?
2naSalit
(86,646 posts)ck4829
(35,077 posts)Freethinker65
(10,024 posts)To refuse to use the science GOD gave you will make GOD really really angry.
JohnSJ
(92,219 posts)Chainfire
(17,549 posts)And, it ain't the people.
Magoo48
(4,716 posts)Greed for money and power buy their spots.
Sadly, half the people in America dont know the Supreme Count exists, and two thirds dont know what they do. Maybe thats a bit high but you get the picture.
Its difficult to fire up a grassroots movement against a gubment so many people dont understand.