Skip to main content

View Diary: Inhofe's last hurrah; and why Scalia wants to duck global warming decision (26 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  On Scalia. (3+ / 0-)

    I can't say I blame him!  I think we are putting the SCOTUS in an odd position by making them decide if Global Warming should be covered by current pollution laws... it will require them to make a scientific decision and they are not scientists.  

    Love him or hate him, you must understand that Scalia believes in deference to the Executive and Legislative branch... Congress did not pass a law that explicty included CO2 emissions as an EPA-regulated pollution in response to the Executive branch's refusal to address the issue.  

    This is just as valid a viewpoint as the alternative view that the judicial branch has the responsibility of interpreting laws and making sure they are applied.  Both make sense, it is just a matter of values and philosophy.  

    ...if it's broken, then fix it. If you cant fix it, then pay for it. I say we make Bush pay for Iraq.

    by Tetris on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 01:16:44 PM PST

    •  It seems like it is just a matter of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      statutory interpretation and not of science. But past precedent -- under the Chevron decision in the 1980s (named for the case, not because it is pro-Chevron) -- gives great deference to agency interpetations of statutes.  That can work both ways -- it just depends on who's running the agencies at the time.

      If the S.Ct. does not act, Congress should.

      In addition, it looks like the perfect issue to cause Al Gore to run for Presidency. Global warming could be a key issue in the 2008 election.    

      •  I'm not so sure. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        If Global Warming were to be "sold" as a key issue it would take some work.  It seems to me that most liberals are behind some action, conservatives solidly against it, and I get the impression that moderates are unsure about it.  

        Fear should be used.  Lost lives, lost economy.  If "sold" properly and if the media and scientific community continue or escalate their Global Warming chorus then it has the potential to become a potent issue.  

        One often-touted campaign strategy is to correlate your campaign's message with the media (either be extracting the media's coverage, by manipulating the media to cover your issue, or both).  

        On the downside, in the short term I can see a "Global Warming Initiative" cause problems for the president.  He may pass it, but during the adjust period where people realize that gas prices are higher and new carbon-free products are more expensive (basically when they realize that they are going to "pay" to solve Global Warming) then I see problems for the president such as low approval ratings, loss of the presidency, and the Democratic party losing seats in Congress.  That of course is barring the outside possibility that the public is witnessing dramatic effects of Global Warming on the TV screens which from what understand won't start happening until the middle of the century.

        ...if it's broken, then fix it. If you cant fix it, then pay for it. I say we make Bush pay for Iraq.

        by Tetris on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 01:45:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If Global Warming won't warm up the voters in 2008 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          i.e. it is seen as a nanny-care-bleeding-heart-librul cause, then take the national health and national security approach. Pollution causes and makes asmatha worse, and is not good for anyone's lungs. Using cleaner, more energy efficient motors/engins lessens our dependence upon oil and the middle east. I think a two pronged attack without the education about global warming (which is really needed but probably can't be accomplished in this admin) might be able to accomplish what is needed in 2008.

          "The healthy man does not torture others - generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers. " Jung

          by sailmaker on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 02:40:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  the national security approach... (0+ / 0-)

            For example:  For our own security we have to disentangle ourselves from the Middle East.  This means energy independence.  While we're building a new energy infrastructure, we should do it with climate-clean technologies so as not to burden the children with the financial and health costs of dirty technologies.

            In the short term we can build our way out of all of this, and peak oil as well, with massive depoyment of wind, nuclear, and solar, and increases in fuel efficiency.  That should be seen as a bridge strategy.  Five or ten years down the road when climate impacts of previous-generation technology are becoming more acute, i.e. from the fossil fuels we are burning right now, it will be possible to convince people it's time to crank down their excessive lifestyles and pay the relevant financial costs.  

            If we take a stepwide approach we can deal with this without committing political suicide.  

    •  Besides, he's a Strict Constructionist (5+ / 0-)

      The Founding Fathers made no mention of global warming in the Constitution.  It is impossible therefore for the courts to have any opinion on it.

      •  Global warming starts with a U.S. politician! (0+ / 0-)
        The study of global warming arguably starts with our Founding Fathers, specifically Ben Franklin's conjectures of the effects of volcanic aerosols on climate back in 1784, when he wasn't busy doing the first systematic temperature and other measurements of the Gulf Stream.  I'm surprised that Gore didn't mention it in An Inconvenient Truth.

        Oh the irony...  


    •  So Scalia is proving the Peter Principle? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Love

      He is a fool and wrong. The Supreme Court is a CO-EQUAL branch of the government, and is not supposed to be deferential to the other two branches.

      Really, all he is doing is proving he is a great coward. So I have to disagree, this is not a valid viewpoint to hold. I understand that he may hold it, but it is not valid and shows why he should have never been selected to the Court in the first place.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site