Supreme Court Mullahs (5 lawyers) Order National Fatwa on Global Warming

As expected by those attuned to the five Supreme liberal politican-lawyers in charge of the Surpeme Ruling Council of America a new Fatwa decree has been issued to policy makers on our duty to war on Global Warming.

And as would be expected, the Court five needed a new theological manipulation of the people's laws text to impose their latest higher wisdom over democracy and a free government - still, we should note four voted for the people, and two legally faithful mullahs authored two dissents on behalf of democratic law:

Justice Roberts:


Scalia:


I, for one, hope the government of, by, and for the people do not resist the mullahs - they have declared and we must obey. Fall to your knees oh ignorant ones, bow and groval in admiration of their wisdom over our elected policy makers and their laws. All hail the legal mullahs altrustic guidence...

I am not sure what echo chamber in your mind you are laughing in, but where did I say or imply Robers and Scalia are 'liberal' mullahs???

For those not easily distracted by accurate characterizations on the state of the American Supreme Council/Court, the good points of Scalia and Roberts can be appreciated as self-evident truth. Most of us were not surprised at the results, regardless of the briefs or the "conventional wisdom" of legal-eagles who followed oral arguments. The court is divided by two factions, with swing Kennedy fairly predictable according to the political issue proffered.

Shorn of political issues (such as contract law) the court is tied to the law (hence Breyer's and others rational voting record in this area, regardless of the plantiffs)...but when a political issue gets on the docket the liberals postulate all sorts of nonsense to impose their views.

This case was obviously wrongly decided, but no matter - it imposes policy on democracy.

It bothers you that I call these mountebanks 'mullahs', and their decrees little more than policy fatwas? Apparently you hold them in some esteem, a sentimental attachment I do not share.

At least half are dubious people having little character, a few so intellectually and morally debased that they ought to be a national embarrassment in the highest Supreme Council in the land (Kennedy in particular).

But these are the issues.

First, regardless of administration, the first requirement of the law is that the plaintiff have standing; i.e. that they are directly harmed by a lack of application of the law and comply with Article III. Roberts, et. al., I think have clearly shown that the Court erred in even entertaining this case and (amusingly) punned it by referring to one notorious prior case of error in standing called "SCRAP".

Second, democracy is acting under the color of law. Congress passed a law BUT did not intend to regulate all emissions. It's intentions are easily discovered by historical reference and subsequent Congressional votes on attempts to regulate greenhouse gases. It also gave the EPA the authority to define pollution and pollutants, which it must do within the boundaries of reasonable meanings.

Democracy, through its laws, require standing AND implementing Congresses expressed intentions (within the plain text).

Judicial dictatorship requires an appeal to "unplain" theory, manipulation of prior findings, and conformance to the opinion of socially or politically progressive thinkers.

Naturally the axe-grinding left want to portray this as "more Bush defiance of the law", substituting their continual pot-banging expressions hatred for the man for the legal-moral issues at stake.

Perhaps I have taken too much for granted, so my apologies. In summary:

a) I am expressing my distaste for the Supreme Court as a whole...an institution that acts much as Iran's Supreme Council which 'permits' some low level democracy but that, in fact, operates as religious or (if you like) imperial body which has the real power over society. It is not a co-equal branch (as it should be) but has become an oversight branch - just like Iran.

b) Like the mullahs, the "liberal" majority on the Court are theological mystics - rather than reading the plain text of the law they use a form of the intellectual equivelent of reading chicken entrails...e.g. "living constitutionalism" to go beyond the law to make new law and/or make policy.

c) Roberts and Scalia are mullahs, but they stick to plain text and the law. They are not mystics, they are honest judges. The whole court has too much power but at least they are honest in their readings.

To be fair, perhaps I should call the conservative four "judges" and the crazy five "mullahs' - but I think you get the points.

And finally, the case was wrongly decided.

As I feared, my 'insane post' wrongly assumed general knowledge of this major, breaking story. I will followup with some links but in summary:

1) Roberts rightly established that the plaintiffs had no standing.
2) Scalia rightly established that if they actually had standing, the case had little merit.

Congress established it's intent in the clean air act, both at the time and in follow-up considerations of the control of global warming. The power granted did not include a regulation nor, as implied, a necessity to limit greenhouse gases.

How is that for reasonable?

Standing is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for bringing suit - therefore it is among the first requirements. It is also one of the two crux issue in the 5-4 split. As Robert's pointed out "standing" is not some artifice of malleable convenience, it is an essential requirement and he used SCRAP (a prior case) as the only comparable example of SCOTUS blunders in standing: "...(they) made (the petitioner's) standing seem a lawyer’s game, rather than a fundamental limitation ensuring that courts function as courts and not intrude on the politically accountable branches."


I know the case well enough to confirm Scalia's observation on its merits:

"The Court’s alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency."


Changing the status quo is never politically easy, and it is not the role of the Court's to make the people's policy contrary to Congress's prior intent and limited enabling legislation, and then challenge them them to veto it via legislation. Such disingenuous seizures of legislative policy making power is unacceptable to a Republic and contrary to a serious belief in Constiutionalism.

As I have been asked to supply more detail to my assertions...

First, the plaintiffs had no standing. Article III of the Constitution is an essential underpinning of the seperation of powers and the petitioners did not remotely satisfy it. They failed to allege an "injury-in-fact" that is actual, imminent, particular, or concrete. (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). The plaintifff did not demonstrate that the so-called injury was 'fairly traceable' to unlawful conduct of the EPA and the the injury would be redressed through the requested relief. (Allen, 468 U.S. at 751).

Second, Congress did not deligate authority to the EPA to regulate the emissions of the greenhouse gases from motor vehicles, cows, or other sources. The text, history, logic, and subsquent history of the Clean Air Act confirm this. In 1978, Congress did not consider or ask - either in debate or its mandates - that greenhouse gases be regulated or considered a form of pollution. In fact it did not think of CO2 being a form of pollution, it did not enact rules concerning greenhouse gases NOR did it deligate such authority as an "intelligible principle" to shape agency policy.(Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S. at 133).

In none of its subsquent Acts did it presume it granted regulatory authority over greenhouse gases and, in fact, assumed the opposite. ( See National Climate Program Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-367, 92 Stat. 601 (1978) (an Act to establish a comprehensiveand coordinated national climate policy and program). In fact, more recently in the: http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs...a_10-24-06.pdf


And
Therefore,
Last, as Scalia pointed out: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/05-1120.pdf

[QUOTE=Aquatic;1063950]
So now I get ring side commentary? I have no objection, other than your lack of colorful and vivid banter. Perhaps you should consider this as a guide:

"Aside from some questionable theatrical taunting from Max, his ring 'extremism' has been in the relentless pummeling of the environmental-Scotus adoring tag team. So far, all the tag team tactics of indignation, lecturing, and finger wagging has failed to stem the onslaught, their ideological blood gushing from their no longer attractive sniffing noses. Even Max's fans are calling this ring bruiser insane..."

"So far, the team has not come out for the bell - looks like the fight may be called. "

Shout words of encouragement to their corner, this one is too easy.

And, BTW, assuming you are half-serious I have not worked for the Republican Party for 30 years and never been a 'paid' operative - the paid members are much better at alienating fellow conservatives.

Aquatic,

Sure, later this PM when I finish gardening.

Aquatic,

You find humor that the agency responsible for preventing pollution could make a responsible judgment to defer regulation of a pollutant.

Of course, responsible has several meanings and used in the above structure it does bring a smile, though logically consistent.

As the EPA has a broader purpose (including improving public welfare through its area of authority), I see nothing inconsistent in deferring pointless spending on a nearly insoluble problem.