SCOTUS Justice Alito said what?

From:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/02/14/supreme-court-justice-samuel-alito-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-pollutant/

Alito speech excerpt:

Here’s another example: regulation of the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Now, Americans are, obviously, of two minds about the regulation of greenhouse gases and the question of climate change. But one thing that I think is beyond dispute is that whatever our country does about this matter is important. It will have a profound effect on the environment, or the economy, or on both. In a healthy republic, this issue would be publicly debated, and the basic policy choices would be made by the elected representatives of the people. That is the system prescribed by our Constitution. But that is not what has happened.

The Clean Air Act was enacted by Congress way back in 1970, and it regulates the emission of “pollutants” – that’s the term in the statute. Now, what is a pollutant? A pollutant is a subject that is harmful to human beings or to animals or to plants. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is not harmful to ordinary things, to human beings, or to animals, or to plants. It’s actually needed for plant growth. All of us are exhaling carbon dioxide right now. So, if it’s a pollutant, we’re all polluting.

When Congress authorized the regulation of pollutants, what it had in mind were substances like sulfur dioxide, or particulate matter—basically, soot or smoke in the air. Congress was not thinking about carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. Yet in an important case decided by the Supreme Court in 2007, called Massachusetts v. EPA, a bare majority of the Court held that the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Armed with that statutory authority, the EPA has issued detailed regulations for power plants, for factories, for motor vehicles.

The economic effects of these regulations are said to be enormous. I am not a scientist or an economist, and it is not my place to say whether these regulations represent good or bad public policy. But I will say that a policy of this importance should have been decided by elected representatives of the people in accordance with the Constitution and not by unelected members of the judiciary and bureaucrats. But that is the system we have today, and it is a big crack in our constitutional structure.

Hit the link for more…

Subscribe to feed

Advertisements

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW and GIStemp Issues, Political Current Events and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to SCOTUS Justice Alito said what?

  1. philjourdan says:

    The problem with justices like Alito and Scalia (and hopefully Gorsuch) is that they are intelligent and non-partisan. Which makes them the judicial version of Trump. The hacks on the left of the court contort themselves into contradictions to support the left. Their logic shows it.

    Those who condemn them do so out of fear, not facts.

  2. omanuel says:

    Nations and national academies of sciences were united under the UN on 25 OCT 1945 to save the world from the possible nuclear annihilation by

    1. Hiding the source of energy in cores of heavy elements, like Uranium and Plutonium.

    2. Eliminating “nationalism” – pride in governments created and controlled by people.

    3. Building a borderless, one-world government run by benevolent bureaucrats under the guidance of a benevolent dictator.

    My research mentor risked his life trying to prevent this secret, totalitarian conquest of society and abuse of science to deceive and control humanity.

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/TRIBUTE_TO_KURODA.pdf

  3. Gary says:

    The judicial branch has always contained a flaw in our Constitutional arrangement. It depends on honest brokers, of which there are none, although there may be a few reasonably good enough. Even with the checks and balances of the other branches, lifetime appointment without constraint takes away an important check. I’m not sure how to remedy the situation, but two hundred years of experience is long enough to see that it needs some fixing.

  4. Ron Clutz says:

    The best hope is for jurists to resist the activist attempts (multiple) to encase global warming theory into law. All science conclusions are conditional upon further evidence, and attaching any policy actions to current scientific findings belongs to the political realm, not the judicial one.

  5. beththeserf says:

    From poster Richard Ilfield @ JoNova.
    http://floornews.org/why-are-people-and-businesses-moving-from-blue-states-to-red-states/
    Whither? People voting with their feet.

  6. H.R. says:

    SANITY!

  7. omanuel says:

    Bill Streifer, the investigative reporter who reported . . .

    1. Stalin’s USSR troops captured Japan’s atomic bomb plant at Konan, Korea, and

    2. Shot down and captured the crew of an American B-29 bomber and held them for negotiations (all in AUG 1945, during a news blackout) before . . .

    3. Nations and national Academies of Sciences were united under the UN on 24 OCT 1945, that same

    That same Bill Streifer became a member of the Editorial Board of the Russian NAS (National Academy of Sciences) today.

    If the Russian NAS now confirms that NEUTRON REPULSION powers the Sun and the cosmos, the life of the late Professor Paul Kazo Kuroda will be forever vindicated and the reputation of the treasonous US NAS forever discredited.

  8. DonM says:

    Phil,

    “The hacks on the left …”

    Retiring Ginsburg today, at full salary till she dies, and letting the DNC vote in her place would save significant office staff/overhead costs. And it would not make a bit of difference to the final court decisions.

    The fact that Scalia treated her so well that she thought they were buddies shows that Scalia was a pretty good guy (irrespective of the left wing/media portrayals).

  9. Gail Combs says:

    Retiring Ginsburg….

    I am just hoping she has an aneurysm in her brain or massive heart attack gets turfed because her drooling becomes to hard to hide.

    I have ZERO use for that miserable witch.

  10. DonM says:

    … Gail,

    … increasing respect with (almost) every post….

Comments are closed.