SCOTUS to hear Global Warming case - It is time to force their hand.

I'll start this diary at the same place I plan to end it; with a righteously indignant shout of encouragement and appreciation to former Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly.

Tom Reilly had been a consistent leader for this case and even though he lost his bid for Governor with a 3rd place finish in the Massachusetts primary back in September in many ways this is still his story.

So lets start at the beginning....

And the beginning of this story is July 17, 2002 when Tom Reilly joined with ten other Democratic Attorneys General to send a letter to President Bush urging him, in fact imploring him, and clearly officially requesting him to order the Environmental Protection Agency to act on their OWN report.  

The gist was along the lines of "Nice report.  Glad to see you actually address it.  Blah, Blah, Blah.  Now DO SOMETHING."  Right?  Right.

Now we all know things don't happen quickly in Government, and even slower in a Republican government and even SLOWER in the George Bush Administration.  And when it involves some crazy lefty agenda item like climate change, oh sweet mother of God, don't hold your breath!  So we waited.  And waited.

And waited.  And the official governmental response was:  _______.

But here's where it gets good.  You see the Clean Air Act has a thing or two to say about this and specifically Section 108 has a little catch in it.  First, in paragraph one, it requires the Administration to identify any air pollutant that

emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which  may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare;

Which their 2002 report clearly did.  So then we skip to paragraph two which says:

The Administrator shall issue air quality criteria for an air pollutant within 12 months after he has included such pollutant in a list under paragraph (1). Air quality criteria for an air pollutant shall accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in  indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare

And since those 12 months had clearly expired, the Attorneys General of Massachusetts, along with Connecticut and Maine did what Attorneys, General or otherwise, do best and sued.

The press release came out on June 4th in which the Connecticut AG is quoted as saying

"Our lawsuit is a last resort. Even after abundant opportunity and public urging, the EPA steadfastly refused to enforce the law and protect the public. It has repeatedly acknowledged its authority, but it has persistently failed its obligation to use that authority. Now the courts must compel it."

And while I'm sure there is a more eloquent legalese description of the state of affairs in which the EPA now found itself, suffice it to say the AGs now had it by the balls.  Its probably something like In Graspus Testiculus or Majorus Screwus or some other technical term but I digress.  

And while this may have been quite the conundrum for an Administration that had oh I dunno... morals, or um.. a sense of responsibility, or maybe a faint inclination of actually doing their job, for Team BuschCo the answer was as plain and the rapidly growing nose on their face:  CHANGE THE REPORT.

{poof!} CO2 is no longer a pollutant so says the new and improved EPA report.  And on the same day, the EPA dusts off a 4 year old petition from environmental groups that it had ignored since 1999 and ruled that they do not have authority to regulate CO2 because its not a uh.. you know...um. whaddyacallit.. an "air pollutant".  Sorry.  Can't help you.  Wish we could.  Really.  We mean that.  Now run along and go play with your new tax cuts.

Tom Reilly spoke for all of us in his next press release saying:

"We are disappointed by EPA's refusal to deal with the problem of global warming, even if not surprised by it."

and appealed. This time he has 11 states with him.  He challenges the denial of his suit.  He challenges the new report.  He challenges their dismissal of the 1999 petition.  He challenges Dick Cheney to settle it all "mono a mono" in a steel-cage death match!  Okay, I made that last part up.  Anyway, all of this gets wrapped in one case (Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA) and he marched right into the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and...   Lost

   The three judge panel issued three different opinions, but two of them sided with the EPA.  Reilly then appealed to the Appellate Panel to be reheard and lost 2-1.  He appealed to the full court to be reheard and lost 4-3.  

Judge David S. Tatel (a.k.a The Lone Voice of Reason) lashed out with  a strongly worded dissent where he said

"Indeed, if global warming is not a matter of exceptional importance, then those words have no meaning."

So on March 2, 2006 Tom Reilly appealed his case to the US Supreme Court.  The US, naturally opposed this but nonetheless the SCOTUS took the case.

So now here we are.  Oral Arguments are on the docket for November 29, 2006.  The briefs are posted on the SCOTUS web site.

It is time to force this country to address this issue and so therefore, once again, I voice my heartfelt gratitude, on behalf of the American people to former Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly.