On 3 Apr 2007 14:24:05 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 13:43:56 -0400, Charlie Morgan said:

Are you now going to insist that the Supreme Court of
the United States of America is a tool of the radical left or some
other such nonsense?

I'm going to insist that the Supremes are not in the business of resolving
factual controversies such as causes of, and effective remedies for, GW.
They're in the business of deciding what statutes mean and whether agencies
have followed the procedures required by statutes. That's what they did in
this case. I would probably come down on the minority side of this 5-4
decision, but that's really not relevant.

The decision gives the EPA at least three choices. It may determine that
vehicle emissions do not contribute significantly to climate change. It may
determine that the do contribute significantly to climate change and
regulate them. Or it may determine that there is sufficient scientific
uncertainty that it cannot make a reasoned judgment on the issue.

The decision also leaves open the possibility that it could determine that
vehicle emissions do contribute to climate change, but that for policy
reasons they should nevertheless not be regulated.

I summary, what the court said is that the EPA cannot refuse to make a
decision on the basis that Congress has tied its hands.


clear, concise, and spot on.