The Winners and Losers of the Surpeme Court’s Global Warming Activism
Who are the big winners and losers in Monday’s monumental Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA? A sharply divided 5-4 decision found that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles—most notably carbon dioxide—despite the fact Congress has considered and rejected such proposals in the past. Taking its judicial activism one step further, the Court ruled the agency must provide a sound scientific rationale if it chooses not to regulate them in the future.
The decision to grant standing to the Bay State involved even more contorted legal arguments. The majority wrote that as a sovereign state, Massachusetts should be afforded special deference. It is an odd assertion. Thus legal observers were treated to the bizarre sight of Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter citing the principle of states’ rights in permitting the lawsuit to proceed. In reality, Monday’s ruling turns notions of federalism and states’ rights on their head. Previous rulings protecting states’ sovereignty did so by repealing overreaching federal laws or regulations. Monday’s case did no such thing; the plaintiffs argued that the federal government wasn’t acting.
The second paragraph is a great point. SCOTUS ruled that in order to protect the sovereignty of the states the federal government MUST regulate every act made by every person in every state. That is the logic of totalitarianism.
The article makes the case that the decision by the Supreme Court will mainly benefit the nuclear industry. Nuclear power is the only power source that step in for coal. The other ‘alternatives sources’ are limited and uneconomical at best. The law has been changed to make it easier to build nuclear power plants.
If the building of nuclear power plants was the extent of the new regulations I guess that would be rather benign. But since the science of global warming is based on a flawed premise there will be no end in regulation. In the end this power gives the government would give the government the power to decide what we drive, what we do on vacation, where we work, what we do on our time off. In fact since the very act of breathing produces carbon dioxide they may decide like the Chinese to limit how many children we have. All in the cause of Junk Science.
It’s like my brother said once. The global warming cult can be compared to savages that sacrifice the young to the volcano gods. If throwing one virgin into the crater doesn’t quiet the volcano then they’ll sacrifice two. Of course the volcano doesn’t care. It’s going to erupt or not depending on the natural laws. But as long as you let them start down the road to their fantastic beliefs and fixes then sooner or later it will be your daughter that get’s thrown down the crater. It’s the same way with global warming. The Earth is in a warming cycle. Sacrificing my SUV isn’t going to make one bit of difference what the climate is. When the sacrifice of my SUV doesn’t solve the problem the cult will demand that I sacrifice my compact car, my barbecue grill and my fireplace. But the Earth doesn’t care, it’s in a warming cycle.
This is an article that you should read in it’s entirety. The one problem with this article is that it accepts the big lie that industry will take the brunt of the regulation. That’s untrue. The costs and sacrifices will be borne by the consumer, you and me.
robert108
ews48
Puzzlefeet
pparets
Proof
likwidshoe
Bat One
LifeTrek
