The reason I will vote for whoever is the Democratic nomination in November is my fear that a GOP President will nominate justices in the like of the current conservatives justices. More than jobs, national security, or health care, the nomination of one or more Supreme Court justices is the number one issue for me this election.
193
Supreme Court justices have become the prima donnas of American politics, serenely insulated from the "angry" electorate, defiantly secure in their lifetime appointments, slyly sophisticated in playing political games, and so sensitive about their deliberations that they shudder at the thought of TV cameras in their inviolable space. The conservative majority has the power to thwart any progressive initiative without explanation, other than some vapid legalese that passes for a rationale, a legalese that must be accepted because the public has no recourse other than accepting their edicts. This predicament is lamented by progressives but exploited by conservatives who, realizing they have friends in high places, center their legal strategies on moving cases and appeals toward those usually reliable friends. Since any fair attempt to rectify this rigging of the American judicial system must acknowledge that a progressive majority could be just as partisan, remedies must address ways to curtail the excesses and imbalances built into our current system, starting with the question of lifetime appointments.
90
This is Obama's pledge, not America's!
If the courts supported Obama's efforts on climate control the Republicans and their controlled media would blame the courts for being controlled by the Democrats.
The propaganda doesn't work anymore. Americans are showing their displeasure with the established leadership choices from both parties and that is why we have a Sanders and Trump receiving more votes that Hillary and Bush.
If the courts supported Obama's efforts on climate control the Republicans and their controlled media would blame the courts for being controlled by the Democrats.
The propaganda doesn't work anymore. Americans are showing their displeasure with the established leadership choices from both parties and that is why we have a Sanders and Trump receiving more votes that Hillary and Bush.
21
I wonder how much the coal industry paid them to vote this way? It's time to investigate Supreme Court members for corruption.
71
I never understood why legal questions, jurisprudence questions or any other worldly questions were left up to an appointed panel of retired, non lucid,perhaps even uninterested attorneys. Why not just vote them onto their thrones with a popular vote. America gets the president it deserves, why not judges?
14
Roberts remarks about the court not being highly political are as laughable and deceitful as his testimony during his nomination process. He stated during those hearings that it would be his role as chief justice to serve as umpire in a ballgame calling balls and strikes and not changing the rules of the game -- in other words -- not actively overturning precedent. Roberts' has overturned many decades of precedent when it comes to campaign finance, civil rights, environmental regulation, the role of the court as branch of government, not the preeminent branch of government ...you name it. Roberts and his Republican justice cohorts have indeed made the Supreme Corporate Court not only a political branch of government, but as evidenced by this latest action, to turn our democracy into an oligarchic plutocracy. Roberts may be calling balls and strikes, but he's calling them in a country club golf tournament.
119
Roberts should be impeached for lying in his confirmation hearings that he respects and would follow the principal of stare decisis, or letting precedent stand in most settled cases that had come before. He has shown time and again that he will not only take cases that have long ago been settled, but that he will act as an activist judge to overturn precedent on any matter that will please the plutocrats.
78
Think about it, the Republicans are willing to destroy the earth for them to have their way. Their way is the Koch way which is to burn fossil fuels that pollute the air, let the leaks go to despoil the ground and water. Because they say so. It makes me sick.
76
The US&A has done more to combat climate change than just about anyone. Let's wait for the rest of the newly industrialized world, like India, Russia and China where you cannot even see across the street, to catch up before we inconvenience ourselves further and incur greater expense.
8
This court is one of the worst in history. They are blantantly republican in their decisions, which normally go against common sense and science.
58
Whether the rules are "popular" doesn't matter. Allowing states "flexibility" doesn't matter. The otherwise "expedited" schedule doesn't matter. All that matters is what the law means and was intended to cover. BTW, you just as easily could have said "with all the liberal justices lined up against the majority, the court reinforced the view that it is knee deep in partisan politics it claims to stand above." How about a little "scientific" objectivity?
12
Given the number of cases that were decided on 5 to 4 decisions, clearly along partisan lines, and the political implications of each case; the Repeal of Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act in June of 2013, Citizens United in 2010, and not to mention Bush v Gore, 2000; the unmistakable "elephant in the room"; one would have to be beyond stupid to believe that the Supreme Court of the last 16 years has served as nothing more than an extension of the GOP. I take what Justice Robert's says in defense of his non partisan interpretation of the law with a grain of salt. At the same time, all those citizens who voted for Republican members of congress are getting their just deserts. The sad part is that the rest of us have to digest those same deserts. Yes, there is a balance of power in the way our political system was designed. If one fails to see, at this point in time, that global weather change is a matter of life and death then the words used by Abraham Lincoln, which he borrowed from Christ: A house divided against itself cannot stand," is our destiny and it's staring us in the face. When our world is out of balance, we, as a species, will have, in effect, been put in check. That's the ultimate system of check and balances.
28
This is just one more example of the importance of this year's presidential election. The next president could potentially appoint as many as four justices to the Supreme Court. When the Court is this closely divided, those four appointments could dramatically alter the direction of this country for decades to come.
40
The reason why people aren't more concerned about the threats of climate change is because it is progressive and not many people are threatened by it on a daily basis. I believe most people understand what we are doing to the planet; however, they shrug it off because they won't be alive when this or that happens due to climate change. The inhabitants at Marshall Islands face the realities of climate change on a daily basis. With the warming atmosphere, the sea levels continue to rise, and these islands people call home will be submerged, like it wasn't even there. China and the US agreed to combat this problem, and I think they should so they can set an example for other countries
12
This is a great example of why we are doomed to go through global warming. There are enough ignorant, self-serving people in power to block any progress. I hope their children remember them in future years as they go through the droughts, famine, and warfare that will accompany uncontrolled warming.
39
SCOTUS foisted GW Bush on the American people instead of the popularly elected Al Gore, thereby setting the stage for the Iraq War and a cascade of chaos in the Middle East. The gratuitous and contrived "Citizens United" decision then paved the way for an American Oligarchy. Now, predictably, they step in line behind the climate change deniers. You have to wonder how the five justices behind this frontal attack on American Democracy and Planet Earth manage to sleep at night.
67
While the Supreme Court's decision is terrifying, people should remember that this decision is a result of 27 states, led by Republicans, suing to overturn the Obama regulations. Democrats need to take a more active interest in politics at the state level. Getting state legislatures and governors back is as important as electing the next president.
63
Maybe the court just want's to protect ordinary Americans from the radical policies resulting from the very radical interpretation of climate "science" that this "progressive" administration holds.
13
"We don't work for Democrats or Republicans" Chief Justice Roberts. Another commenter asked if he was serious? But, really, he is. They are so delusional and dogmatic they really believe they are doing the right thing, and the whole rest of the country is wrong on wanting environmental protections.
16
No worries. The Atlantic is in the process of reclaiming Washington DC right now.
22
Why cries of partisanship only when the vote skews conservative?
14
Apparently - non-binding, voluntary, completely insufficient pledges are too much federal coercion for the court to tolerate.
That just makes us doubly lame.
That just makes us doubly lame.
12
I love your byline "The Court Blocks Efforts to Slow Climate Change", because it admits that climate change even with major efforts is inevitable, and that the best we can do at this point is try to slow it up somewhat. I graduated with a degree in meteorology and climate science in 1980. My graduate research paper was called "CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect". In 1978 what we now call global warming was called 'the greenhouse effect". What we knew even back then was that CO2 can stay in the upper atmosphere for over 100 years before breaking down. This is the CO2 that is causing global warming. Currently, most of the CO2 in upper atmosphere was produce from 1820 to 1960. Without a new technology to actually clean the upper atmosphere of CO2 our species is going to be cooked. I am for reducing CO2 emissions anyway that we can, but at this point without being able to clean up the CO2 already up there, we are toast.
17
Remember that disingenuous response from Roberts: "I only call balls and strikes." Really !!! This court continues to promote an ideological agenda that has no ball or strike zone. The umpires in black ropes know what the score will be before they leave the dugout --- 5 - 4.
21
I'm fairly sure that John Roberts will be the reason that term limits will be enacted for Supreme Court justices. He has shown a complete disdain for the public and the best interest of the majority, and now even the international community. He's a ruthless elitist entrenched in what amounts to Darwinian dogma, that never should have been appointed. As such the only way to get rid of him and his ilk is to change the Constitution. If Sanders prevails, and I expect he will, it will only be a matter of a few years before term limits for SCOTUS is on the docket, mostly because Roberts is a manipulative political lackey for the wealthy ultra-right better known as the fringe right, that has no moral investment in the nation or the international community at all.
25
Ah, you forgot to mention that the Constitution describes how such agreements are to be turned into domestic law. It's called Article VI (not Amendment Six). President Obama not surprisingly ignored the Constitution on this agreement, it is not a "treaty," and the United States is not a party to the non-treaty. His "agreement" is as good as his word and nothing more. Thankfully.
6
It is quite obvious that after Citizens United the rightist hacks on the bench have no shame left.
I hope that 30 yrs from now the rightist Justice's grandkids, the ones with emphysema anyway, know to blame their own bought and paid for rightst grandpappies for the toxic hothouse in which they live.
I hope that 30 yrs from now the rightist Justice's grandkids, the ones with emphysema anyway, know to blame their own bought and paid for rightst grandpappies for the toxic hothouse in which they live.
5
Absolutely devastating... these five old men are imperiling us all. The Clean Power Plan is the key to the success of the Paris accord. If it goes, it shows the US is not serious about climate change action and if we're not serious about it, no one else will be... the whole deal unravels and there goes any hope to stave off climate disaster. Their disregard for the lives of all young people (not to mention all future people) is just shocking. 190 countries just got together to try to stop this apocalyptic problem... and these guys would sink any chance of success. Their moral corruption boggles the mind.
6
What the court blocked is Obama's insistence on making pledges to the world and then coming home and writing the laws that make his pledges true.
He might not like the fact that the country has voted in a predominantly conservative legislative branch, but he doesn't have the right to just ignore it in order to "get things done". He is a President not a King. And the only reason he is President is because the GOP could not present the country with a viable option last election.
To say the Supreme Court's decision was 'extraordinary' shows a complete lack of understanding of roles each of the three branches play in running our government. Since it is the editorial board writing this, which I assume is comprised of some very smart people, I am going to assume they are being purposely obtuse in order to sway public opinion.
He might not like the fact that the country has voted in a predominantly conservative legislative branch, but he doesn't have the right to just ignore it in order to "get things done". He is a President not a King. And the only reason he is President is because the GOP could not present the country with a viable option last election.
To say the Supreme Court's decision was 'extraordinary' shows a complete lack of understanding of roles each of the three branches play in running our government. Since it is the editorial board writing this, which I assume is comprised of some very smart people, I am going to assume they are being purposely obtuse in order to sway public opinion.
7
There are only two ways to reduce CO2. One is to have fewer humans while the other is to reduce production. Our species has been trying to reduce production for 20 years but the 1% like the status quo, and the road to sustainability for 7.4 billion is full of land mines such as this decision. Financial incentives for one child families, though not easy, will work. Those countries producing most of the CO2 will have to finance this one-child policy. Yes, we need to continue to reduce consumption and CO2 production, but our numbers fuel not just climate change, but mass extinctions and depletion of resources, including clean air and water. We see gods in our mirrors, not the animals we are --but the earth can not support too many gods any more than the earth could support too many elephants or panda bears--so why is 7.4 billion of us better than 1 billion? go to populationmatters.org
4
I fully expect Republicans in Congress to stonewall like this but to have the supreme court do such is infra dig. The five ostriches in court actions have tainted the entire USA. Their action is simply horrible.
3
The legal arm of the Republican Party is at it again. The only way to get rid of them is to make sure that the next President and Congress are elected to be Democrats. Enough of this doom and gloom dangled by Republicans. Vote in November 2016. Tell your children to vote.
4
The justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are not so much party loyalists as they are corporate loyalists. Their voting record where corporate interests are weighed against the public interest is quite consistent: they vote against the public every time. That is why this year's presidential election is so important, as it's quite likely that one or more justices may leave the bench during the next four years.
7
The Gore Bush case, the the decisions to equating free speah and money, corporations as citizens, limiting voter rights and protections, women's and labor's rights, upholding gerrymanding, and now this one illustrate that this court is not merely a partisan court but an extremely partisan court without respect for tradition or precedent, and not a conservative court at all. This court is the critical reason for the future of the country to elect a democrat. This is what Bernie and Hillary should be shouting about.
4
Thomas Jefferson said it first, and correctly, in a democracy justices who are not elected, should not be making laws that can not be undone in the next election. Clearly the justices are not interpreting the Constitution, they are doing the work of corporations.
In the case of the "right to bear arms" they said that the justification for that right had no meaning when it no longer applied, ignored the fact that infringement existed when the amendment was enacted and continued without challenge for several hundred years, and they themselves infringe on the so-called right, by allowing infringement and by not allowing that "constitutional right" to extend into the chambers of the court.
They five wise men,not elected , writing the laws of a democracy, based on their reading of what the Constitution should have said. They reserve the right to remove what they see as "cut an paste" errors.
In the case of the "right to bear arms" they said that the justification for that right had no meaning when it no longer applied, ignored the fact that infringement existed when the amendment was enacted and continued without challenge for several hundred years, and they themselves infringe on the so-called right, by allowing infringement and by not allowing that "constitutional right" to extend into the chambers of the court.
They five wise men,not elected , writing the laws of a democracy, based on their reading of what the Constitution should have said. They reserve the right to remove what they see as "cut an paste" errors.
3
The Supreme Court is on a process to end the President's end run of the House and Senate that were elected by the voters in 50 states.
4
What's amazing about this discussion is that no one questions that the current supreme court is an entirely political organization (i.e. "the republican justices"). What ever happened to the impartial judiciary?
2
The gridlock between the Republican congress and the Democratic president is clearly frustrating to people on both sides. But that is how the system works and I think the founding fathers understood this was a possibility. But as frustrated as Pres. Obama may be that doesn't give him right to ignore the congress and rule by executive fiat. When he tries it ends up in the third branch of government, the courts. That is how it is supposed to work. The partisan tilt of the NYT is pretty much maxed out here. If the courts were blocking a Republican president trying to circumvent a Democratic congress I think this editorial would be very different.
7
Very bizarre editorial.
It is not the courts business to decide most of the issues this editorial offers.
The court decides whether the administrations actions are constitutional and authorized by the law. That is it.
Not whether they are a good idea.
The powers of the executive are either specifically authorized by the constitution, or they are specifically authorized by congress and within the powers the constitution allows to congress.
The constitution does not provide a mechanism to authorize the executive to do whatever it decides is necessary to address some nebulously defined power.
It is not the courts business to decide most of the issues this editorial offers.
The court decides whether the administrations actions are constitutional and authorized by the law. That is it.
Not whether they are a good idea.
The powers of the executive are either specifically authorized by the constitution, or they are specifically authorized by congress and within the powers the constitution allows to congress.
The constitution does not provide a mechanism to authorize the executive to do whatever it decides is necessary to address some nebulously defined power.
7
The Court is clearly a partisan institution. Although it has always been that in some degree, the political right-vs-left dynamics seem so much more blatant lately. What's really disturbing, however, is the lengths to which Roberts and his colleagues will go to convince us that, as jurists, they stand above the fray.
I get that the conventional politicians take the American electorate for fools but it just seems way more offensive when the Chief Justice follows suit.
I get that the conventional politicians take the American electorate for fools but it just seems way more offensive when the Chief Justice follows suit.
3
It is hard to believe that these Five Conservatives hold the fate of the world and our children in their hans. We voted for the Democratic president twice, but these men take back our franchise. Maybe it is time to pack the court as Roosevelt did. Too much power in too few hands. They even overturned our vote for Gore for president.
4
Don't know what planet some of the commenters to this disturbing report live on, but they've mixed up their extreme partisan beliefs with science. They no doubt represent many conservatives who get their "news" from Fox and other biased sources, and are a danger to themselves and to the rest of us. They are clearly totally out of touch with the outdoors, where evidence of global warming is everywhere around us--super violent storms, record-breaking heat, extreme drought and diminishing wildlife.
The decision of the Supreme Court is not just outrageously partisan, it embarrasses the United States globally by preventing us from delivering our pledge to cut back carbon emissions. Clarence Thomas is a disgrace--his vote was for the Koch brothers, not the interests of the citizens of the USA.
"W" not only embroiled us in a lose-lose war in Iraq, with terrible consequences, including the rise of ISIS, he also nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court, and his father put Clarence Thomas's name forward. The perfidy of the two Bushes is immense, and the repercussions from their disastrous judgement on a number of issues will haunt this country for years to come.
The decision of the Supreme Court is not just outrageously partisan, it embarrasses the United States globally by preventing us from delivering our pledge to cut back carbon emissions. Clarence Thomas is a disgrace--his vote was for the Koch brothers, not the interests of the citizens of the USA.
"W" not only embroiled us in a lose-lose war in Iraq, with terrible consequences, including the rise of ISIS, he also nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court, and his father put Clarence Thomas's name forward. The perfidy of the two Bushes is immense, and the repercussions from their disastrous judgement on a number of issues will haunt this country for years to come.
4
The headline starts: "The Republican justices just raised serious questions....".
NYT doesn't like the decision, and they don't like the Republicans, so they are starting to assign party labels to the justices. Isn't that an attempt at blatan campaign politics?
However, it will misfire. The Republicans, probably all the Republicans and conservatives, agree with this decision. And they are reminded that SCOTUS is doing something good for the country.
NYT doesn't like the decision, and they don't like the Republicans, so they are starting to assign party labels to the justices. Isn't that an attempt at blatan campaign politics?
However, it will misfire. The Republicans, probably all the Republicans and conservatives, agree with this decision. And they are reminded that SCOTUS is doing something good for the country.
5
The best reason to vote Democratic-- whichever candidate wins the nomination. Should the Republicans win the election, and nominate more Supremes -- we will be feeling the effects in our everyday life for a long time to come. The court will take us back to places we do not want to go.
Progress not stagnation. Vote Democratic.
Progress not stagnation. Vote Democratic.
2
“The Court Blocks Efforts to Slow Climate Change,” while counting the loot they received from the coal carpetbaggers.
This group of extreme right-wingers won’t last forever.
This group of extreme right-wingers won’t last forever.
2
These are educated men and this is a fair and impartial judgement?
Me thinks these 5 justices are living in a bubble of their own ideological making.
What will it take to pop their bubble? More drought, flood, plague, famine, war on their own families perhaps...
What a disappointment they are...
Me thinks these 5 justices are living in a bubble of their own ideological making.
What will it take to pop their bubble? More drought, flood, plague, famine, war on their own families perhaps...
What a disappointment they are...
2
"And with all the Republican-appointed justices lining up in a 5-to-4 vote to halt the regulation before a federal appeals court could rule on it, the court also reinforced the belief among many Americans that the court is knee-deep in the partisan politics it claims to stand above."
"Knee-deep"? Not even hip-deep. This court is totally submerged in partisan politics, like a U-boat torpedoing the people of the United States. Never in my lifetime has there been such a collection of partisan justices as sit on this court. My guess as a History teacher is that this court will be ridiculed in high school and college history classes across the land in a hundred years or so. It certainly should be.
"Knee-deep"? Not even hip-deep. This court is totally submerged in partisan politics, like a U-boat torpedoing the people of the United States. Never in my lifetime has there been such a collection of partisan justices as sit on this court. My guess as a History teacher is that this court will be ridiculed in high school and college history classes across the land in a hundred years or so. It certainly should be.
2
I'm concerned about climate change, but from that does not follow that Obama has the power to unilaterally legislate a solution. Let's not destroy our system of government in our attempt to avoid destroying the planet. We have a congress. If you can't get voters on your side sufficiently to force action, then there is no action. That's the way it works. The Court is just calling the balls and strikes.
4
"A clear majority of Americans, including many Republicans, agree that global warming is or will soon be a serious threat."
Most Republicans publically DENY that global warming even exists! So how could "many" possibly agree that it's "a serious threat"?
Most Republicans publically DENY that global warming even exists! So how could "many" possibly agree that it's "a serious threat"?
2
Yes, it's always a "partisan decision" and a "deeply divided court" whenever SCOTUS rules against the NYT editorial board's preferences.
Conversely, a 5-4 decision split strictly down ideological lines - such as Roe v Wade - is canonized as a triumph of governance for the ages, never again to be challenged, whenever the decision pleases the board.
Silly, shameless and sophomoric in its self-serving reasoning, the NYT editorial board epitomizes the reason why legacy print journalism has never been held in lower regard.
Conversely, a 5-4 decision split strictly down ideological lines - such as Roe v Wade - is canonized as a triumph of governance for the ages, never again to be challenged, whenever the decision pleases the board.
Silly, shameless and sophomoric in its self-serving reasoning, the NYT editorial board epitomizes the reason why legacy print journalism has never been held in lower regard.
31
I have nothing but pity for the coal miners who have endured a long history of indignity and risk to mind and body, we should be honoring their profession by investing in programs that would provide retraining and good jobs within the new energy sector instead of cutting off this historic initiative at the knees. The consequences of four men and a stooge without vision sabotaging an international agreement and impeding the prospects of a burgeoning alternative energy industry would be unfathomable to Marshall, Holmes and Brandeis. I would love to hear RBG speak out on this because this court is choking us. I don't care if the Democrats nominate Lincoln Chaffee, we cannot risk having another appointee calling balls and strikes alongside Scalia and Silent Clarence.
45
The Times editorial board continues to show its ignorance as to issues of law versus issues of policy. The Supreme Court rules on the legality and constitutionality of a given argument, not the public policy implications. That is the purview of the Congress and the President.
You neglect to point out that all of the Democrat appointed justices lined up with the administration, which also reinforces "the belief among many Americans that the court is knee-deep in partisan politics...." That issue cuts both ways, and frankly, an analysis of decisions in the bigger issues presented to the Court would show much more flexibility and intellectual curiosity from the Republican appointed justices than the Democrat appointed ones. When was the last time anyone ever wondered how Justice Ginsburg was going to come down on a high-profile case?
As to the unprecedented nature of the Court's decision, it is confronted with an Executive who is unprecedented is the breadth and scope of his partisan, lawless executive actions. This ruling portends a poor outcome for the administration in its upcoming immigration case. It seems to me that the Court is sending the message that it has had enough with the executive overreach from President Obama.
You neglect to point out that all of the Democrat appointed justices lined up with the administration, which also reinforces "the belief among many Americans that the court is knee-deep in partisan politics...." That issue cuts both ways, and frankly, an analysis of decisions in the bigger issues presented to the Court would show much more flexibility and intellectual curiosity from the Republican appointed justices than the Democrat appointed ones. When was the last time anyone ever wondered how Justice Ginsburg was going to come down on a high-profile case?
As to the unprecedented nature of the Court's decision, it is confronted with an Executive who is unprecedented is the breadth and scope of his partisan, lawless executive actions. This ruling portends a poor outcome for the administration in its upcoming immigration case. It seems to me that the Court is sending the message that it has had enough with the executive overreach from President Obama.
24
Actually, the 5 judges are blocking the EPA's (read BHO's) effort to destroy capitalism.
16
Obama has no authority to make treaties without the advice and consent of the Senate. His actions were illegal and meaningless. This entire silliness about climate change has reached the absurd, as the latest RSS satellite data shows that 2015 was never the warmest year on record in spite of what Obama told us. It ranks 4th highest and well below all of the model predictions. These are facts for which the climate change pushers never give data because the data never fits their narrative, so they just make general statements. People should investigate and stop blindly believing the nonsense .
22
Government by edict really what you want? What if Bernie decides gasoline is to polluting. Or Trumps decides to start kicking in doors . To much power for one man to hold. A Supreme Court that does the legislatures job.
I'm shocked how little supposedly educated young people have no idea how their government should work. They believe no matter how much an idea falls short it must be brilliant because they thought it. Raise the voting age to 45 before it's to late.
I'm shocked how little supposedly educated young people have no idea how their government should work. They believe no matter how much an idea falls short it must be brilliant because they thought it. Raise the voting age to 45 before it's to late.
9
The EPA is not Congress, and questions about "the ability to deliver on Mr. Obama’s pledge in Paris in December" do not make it so. The Times has no credibility on "political partisanship" if it cannot separate its own preferences from what is a legislative power than cannot legally be delegated to the administration.
20
Disgusting! Rubio is right: Obama is trying to make America like the rest of the world - like the rest of the sane world that is in touch with reality!
17
The Court can do what it wants, but I think the market is going to dictate the demise of coal. Gas is cheap...power plant operators will go the cheapest route. The politics of the Court is a whole other story....
2
"If the court wants to be perceived as acting in a judicial capacity, and not as an arm of the conservatives, it has a funny way of showing it "
Funny how wise & "judicial" the court seemed to the editors when they saved Obamacare twice or approved gay marriage, but are partisan pit bulls otherwise.
Sounds to me like it's the NYT that Is acting as the arm of one point of view only.
Funny how wise & "judicial" the court seemed to the editors when they saved Obamacare twice or approved gay marriage, but are partisan pit bulls otherwise.
Sounds to me like it's the NYT that Is acting as the arm of one point of view only.
14
So yesterday I read an article about retired coal miners. Their pension has problems. There was a bipartisan effort in Congress to fix it. Who opposes it - why, Mitch McConnell, the same guy who opposes cleaning up the coal industry. So those raving liberals on the DC Circuit didn't think a stay was warranted but the Supreme Court does? We all breathe the same air so enjoy your lung cancer diagnosis. The government will end up paying for your treatment.
8
None of the comments mention that 27 states applied to the court to obtain this order. The US has been emitting carbon into the atmosphere for decades; the world will not end as a result of a temporary delay to confirm the legality of the President's action. Similar issues exist in many countries where political powers are divided between federal and state/provincial governments. The President's powers domestically are not increased because of a pledge he makes to other countries. If in fact he has the power to make the order he has made, presumably the order will be confirmed; if he does not have the power, presumably it will not be confirmed. It is obviously well-known throughout the world that America is a country of legal challenges; no foreign country should be surprized by this.
10
This is the legacy of Ronald Reagan - appointing a justice who marches us straight to the back of the line, no longer caring about the planet or America's leadership role in world politics.
13
If the Democratic appointed wing of the court wants to be perceived as acting in a judicial capacity, and not as an arm of the progressives (by voting in blocks of 4 all the time), it has a funny way of showing it.
16
Whether it is popular or not is based solely on how the polling questions are asked. The vast majority of Americans think the world is warming, but there is no catastrophe ahead and that steps not particularly economically harmful should be taken. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is in fact necessary for life. The EPA can regulate pollutants, not carbon dioxide. Those that call it a pollutant are wrong, including any judge that does so. It is a very weak greenhouse gas, and a necessary part of the biosphere.
4
About time someone called out the green on the outside red in the middle watermelon man made climate change hoaxers!
Why do the hoaxers hate the poor and middle class so much they want to MASSIVELY increase their heating bills and food costs? THAT's what the useless, needless left wing extremist war on coal is doing
Not to mention killing the jobs of the Union members that voted for obozo, some justice/karma there I suppose
Why do the hoaxers hate the poor and middle class so much they want to MASSIVELY increase their heating bills and food costs? THAT's what the useless, needless left wing extremist war on coal is doing
Not to mention killing the jobs of the Union members that voted for obozo, some justice/karma there I suppose
6
Is it any wonder we have become cynical about government when a supposedly impartial body like the Supreme Court consistently acts to support big business to the determent of the people? With Citizens United The Supremes struck a mortal blow to democracy in America. Now they are trying to short circuit the Paris Climate Accord by casting doubts as to whether the U.S. will uphold its commitments. Without America's lead the agreement will quickly fall apart which is doubtless their intention. This will negatively impact not just our democracy but the future of our survival as a species on planet earth. Do these right wing activist judges consider themselves men or Gods?
11
The Times should stopped cheerleading for the "unfettered" regulatory state.
Any administrative bureaucracy that can ignore law, and do what you might want it to do, will also have the power to do many things you might think it shouldn't do.
Any administrative bureaucracy that can ignore law, and do what you might want it to do, will also have the power to do many things you might think it shouldn't do.
10
The Court ought to listen to the climate scientists on this issue, not other lawyers. Climate change is real and getting ugly very fast. The temperatures in the Arctic are increasing fast.......affecting weather patterns around the Northern Hemisphere.
How very foolish to make climate change a political football.
How very foolish to make climate change a political football.
14
Claims of non-partisan behavior & judgement from this Supreme Court would be laughable, if the decisions were not so dangerous. The number of cases that are entirely predictable (one Justice at a time) is disturbing.
In too many cases, the general public can easily guess how the vote will turn out, based not on constitutional principles, but on left versus right politics. Regardless of where someone's political views reside on the spectrum, the politicization of the current SCOTUS is obvious.
The substance of their decisions should be a political subject in the Presidential campaign because the make-up of that body is very much "on the ballot" this fall. At the federal level, we are voting for the President & for legislators for a few years and potentially for a Supreme Court for a generation.
You don't have to love your party's candidate at the top of the ticket in order for your vote to be most consequential!
In too many cases, the general public can easily guess how the vote will turn out, based not on constitutional principles, but on left versus right politics. Regardless of where someone's political views reside on the spectrum, the politicization of the current SCOTUS is obvious.
The substance of their decisions should be a political subject in the Presidential campaign because the make-up of that body is very much "on the ballot" this fall. At the federal level, we are voting for the President & for legislators for a few years and potentially for a Supreme Court for a generation.
You don't have to love your party's candidate at the top of the ticket in order for your vote to be most consequential!
6
While I support Mr. Obama and admire him (on this issue), it was never "America's pledge". It was Mr. Obama's pledge.
The NYT has followed a policy of bashing Republicans. Mr. Obama has followed the milder policy of ignoring them.
Neither works. Bipartisanship must be restored. And it can be restored only by the Democrats showing more respect for Republicans. And I do not mean Republican politicians, but Republican voters. You are contemptuous of their values and contempt rarely leads to cooperation.
And yes, America does need to, if not take the leadership, at least go along with action on climate change.
The NYT has followed a policy of bashing Republicans. Mr. Obama has followed the milder policy of ignoring them.
Neither works. Bipartisanship must be restored. And it can be restored only by the Democrats showing more respect for Republicans. And I do not mean Republican politicians, but Republican voters. You are contemptuous of their values and contempt rarely leads to cooperation.
And yes, America does need to, if not take the leadership, at least go along with action on climate change.
6
What happened to the "imminent" so-called "Ice Age" that the New York Times was promoting in the 1970s?
6
What's funny is this opinion's strained logic and over-eagerness to taint the Supreme Court ruling along party-lines. In other words, succumbing too easily to the lowest available denominator of thought, and that too erroneously. If one must go down this path, common-sense would dictate that all justices be blamed, not just one side. So if 5 have ruled one way because they are Republican, the losing 4 are voting the other way because they are Democrats.
Why stop there? The Democrat justices are voting their way because they want attaboys from the NYT editorial board, not to mention warm personalized thanks from Obama himself.
Etc. etc. See how ridiculous and pointless, not to mention downright easy, the line of thought is? Who needs an editorial board to come up with this stuff? DIY. Take a counter-opinion, profile the source, find holes in the profile, instant-connect the dots, add a catchy headline, viola, you got yourself editorial.
Why stop there? The Democrat justices are voting their way because they want attaboys from the NYT editorial board, not to mention warm personalized thanks from Obama himself.
Etc. etc. See how ridiculous and pointless, not to mention downright easy, the line of thought is? Who needs an editorial board to come up with this stuff? DIY. Take a counter-opinion, profile the source, find holes in the profile, instant-connect the dots, add a catchy headline, viola, you got yourself editorial.
6
All three presidents who appointed these five clowns warned against so-called "activist judges". They knew exactly what they were talking about.
14
This is just willful ignorance. Obviously legal expertise has no correlation to basic scientific knowledge. Don't these men have children?
9
Blocking the EPA emissions regulation would truly be the most potentially reckless and destructive ruling the Supreme Court could make. Bush v Gore got us the Iraq war and over a decade of delay in dealing with climate change. Citizens United has turned our democracy into an auction where candidates vie to be bought by oligarchs. DC v. Heller has turned our country into a shooting gallery for foreign and domestic terrorists as well as any nut with the money to buy a gun. But accelerating the destruction of the Earth's bio system tops it all. In the second half of this century as the ice caps melt and the oceans rise and farmland turns to desert triggering mass migrations that will make the Syrian refugee crisis look like a Sunday stroll Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, Thomas and Roberts will be as reviled as Hitler and Stalin. Nice work guys.
10
The Roberts Court is a radical, highly political arm of the GOP and the right wing billionaires. This why the Democrats MUST retain the White House and regain seats in the Senate this fall.
13
This is a Supreme Court similar in composition to the one that foreclosed the democratic process to appoint George W. Bush to the presidency in 2000. The result of that judicial foray into electoral politics is still costing the nation, and the world, dearly.
We should hardly be surprised at this most recent example if precedent-shattering judicial activism. Justices Alito, scalia and Thomas are unabashedly partisan. Perhaps Kennedy and Roberts are slightly more circumspect, but they seem perfectly content to let the globe fry for partisan advantage.
This is why America cannot tolerate a GOP recapture of the White House in 2016.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
We should hardly be surprised at this most recent example if precedent-shattering judicial activism. Justices Alito, scalia and Thomas are unabashedly partisan. Perhaps Kennedy and Roberts are slightly more circumspect, but they seem perfectly content to let the globe fry for partisan advantage.
This is why America cannot tolerate a GOP recapture of the White House in 2016.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
7
I think the five Republican stooges on the Supreme Court were deliberately appointed to destroy its credibility as as an arbiter of the meaning of constitutional language. I wouldn't give you two cents for the integrity of any of them.
5
I will never forget the Cheif Justice's Sanate confirmation hearing when John J. Looked up to cameras with his big blue eyed conservatism and said, we just call balls and strikes.
After this unprecedented stay, the Cheif Justice reveals one more time that his heart is with the corporation not the humans. These are not justices, these men are ideologues of the worst kind for they frame what is possible.
There is plenty of evidence that these men should be impeached.
After this unprecedented stay, the Cheif Justice reveals one more time that his heart is with the corporation not the humans. These are not justices, these men are ideologues of the worst kind for they frame what is possible.
There is plenty of evidence that these men should be impeached.
8
Well when the chips start to fall as they will, I assume those same 27 states won't ask for Fed. assistance right?
Ha ha ha... sorry. That is all they ask for now already.
Ha ha ha... sorry. That is all they ask for now already.
6
Nice title.... The court didn't block an effort to "slow climate change", it blocked a federal agency from stepping all over state's rights. What the Obama administration could not get through Congress in 2009, when Democrats controlled the House and Senate (pay attention), it tried to do through the EPA.
Ignoring the rule of law and provisions of the Constitution should be of greater concern to all Americans. The ends do not justify the means.
Ignoring the rule of law and provisions of the Constitution should be of greater concern to all Americans. The ends do not justify the means.
5
1500 chars does not permit a discussion of the regulatory or legal issues at play here, and this editorial sees it only in political terms (which are surely significant, but don't clarify the dispute before the court).
The EPA attempted to craft regulation within the language of the Clean Air Act of 1990 that allowed the states maximum flexibility and minimized the pain of compliance by exempting many small sources -- the problem is that doing this does stretch the language of the CAA (in my view permissibly, but we'll see) ... and by doing this they open themselves up to the challenges that have been raised.
People, the plaintiffs included, should understand that if the Supremes reject this the rational response of the EPA is to regulate CO2 in a way that follows the regulation of SO2 emissions (a direct purpose of the CAA of 1970, 77, 90) via a cap and trade system; this is legally well tested ... but will impose much more onerous regulation. It would set a flux limit, and one way or another impose cap & trade for CO2, the effect of this would be to punish the coal-states much more than the CPP does.
The plaintiffs should think carefully -- they may deeply regret "winning" this case.
The EPA attempted to craft regulation within the language of the Clean Air Act of 1990 that allowed the states maximum flexibility and minimized the pain of compliance by exempting many small sources -- the problem is that doing this does stretch the language of the CAA (in my view permissibly, but we'll see) ... and by doing this they open themselves up to the challenges that have been raised.
People, the plaintiffs included, should understand that if the Supremes reject this the rational response of the EPA is to regulate CO2 in a way that follows the regulation of SO2 emissions (a direct purpose of the CAA of 1970, 77, 90) via a cap and trade system; this is legally well tested ... but will impose much more onerous regulation. It would set a flux limit, and one way or another impose cap & trade for CO2, the effect of this would be to punish the coal-states much more than the CPP does.
The plaintiffs should think carefully -- they may deeply regret "winning" this case.
7
I find it amazing that people view this as a failure of our Justice system to be free of partisan politics. What's much more concerning about our Justice system is that the US has secret courts that operate as a star chamber and has ruled it's okay to collect data on citizens.
Our justice system, both criminal and civil is a national disgrace. What used to be a beacon of light, a model for the world has been turned on it's head.
Justice Roberts shouldn't be worried about how the court is viewed. He should worry that he is overseeing the late stages of the destruction of the concept of Justice in the US.
This is about way more than mere partisan politics on the court. We just saw an election in Iowa where Presidential candidates were genuflecting to bio-fuels made with corn for a couple of delegates. Coal shouldn't be being burned in the US in 21st century let alone need to be regulated. This failure of our political system to have a carbon tax has put this bought and paid for court in the mix.
Our justice system, both criminal and civil is a national disgrace. What used to be a beacon of light, a model for the world has been turned on it's head.
Justice Roberts shouldn't be worried about how the court is viewed. He should worry that he is overseeing the late stages of the destruction of the concept of Justice in the US.
This is about way more than mere partisan politics on the court. We just saw an election in Iowa where Presidential candidates were genuflecting to bio-fuels made with corn for a couple of delegates. Coal shouldn't be being burned in the US in 21st century let alone need to be regulated. This failure of our political system to have a carbon tax has put this bought and paid for court in the mix.
6
This is outrageous. It is irrational and strictly partisan (republican) Supreme Court decission, an obstruction to join the international community in harnessing climate change...instead of contributing to a solution of a problem we 'helped' to create.
4
The proposed climate change regulations by the Administration may be just what is needed. In a nation run by a philosopher king the proposed regulations might become the law of the land strictly by edict. But for a democracy to work, something takes precedence over good policy or bad policy, good laws or bad laws. That something is due process. Due process is the oil that lets a democracy work and it is this "due process" that the Supreme Court has interjected into this debate on what policy the United States should adopt.
1
I remember some years ago attending a wedding reception and seeing one of the Supreme Court justices there. I quickly grabbed an hors d'oeuvre tray and offered the justice a bacon-wrapped stuffed mushroom. I balked at asking about anything relevant, but I wonder what these justices must say to people close to them who do ask questions, people like grandchildren, who might bluntly ask, "Are you protecting the planet?"
5
There is no doubt that climate change is real and the five Republican appointed Justices are functionaries of the Republican Party.
Why does the Times always defend the Government Establishment and the status quo ? The idea that the Republican Justices are doing anything but backing the Republican Party line but are deep legal scholars who, after deep legal thought, just happen to support the rich, the Banks, the Corporations and the Government Establishment is preposterous and laughable.
Why does the Times always defend the Government Establishment and the status quo ? The idea that the Republican Justices are doing anything but backing the Republican Party line but are deep legal scholars who, after deep legal thought, just happen to support the rich, the Banks, the Corporations and the Government Establishment is preposterous and laughable.
5
I love the way Liberals cry when they don't get their way. You may want to read the Constitution.
The Times refers to GLOBAL WARMING -
That sound you’re hearing from across the Pacific is the Chinese rulers and Beijing laughing at us.
Chinese President Xi Jinping tipped his true intentions with his solemn joint declaration with Mr. Obama that China hereby “targets to peak CO2 emissions around 2030, with the intention to try to peak early.” Intends to. Gee, that’s an ironclad promise you can take to the bank.
Obama’s climate-change pact will cripple U.S. industries by force-feeding them expensive electric power. We will displace millions of highly paid U.S. workers in the oil, gas and coal industries. We will increase the cost of electric utilities as well as home-heating costs.
We are ceding our natural competitive advantages to China — in effect transferring millions of jobs outside the United States. That is why the Chinese and the rest of the world are laughing at us.
Thank you Stephen Moore
The Times refers to GLOBAL WARMING -
That sound you’re hearing from across the Pacific is the Chinese rulers and Beijing laughing at us.
Chinese President Xi Jinping tipped his true intentions with his solemn joint declaration with Mr. Obama that China hereby “targets to peak CO2 emissions around 2030, with the intention to try to peak early.” Intends to. Gee, that’s an ironclad promise you can take to the bank.
Obama’s climate-change pact will cripple U.S. industries by force-feeding them expensive electric power. We will displace millions of highly paid U.S. workers in the oil, gas and coal industries. We will increase the cost of electric utilities as well as home-heating costs.
We are ceding our natural competitive advantages to China — in effect transferring millions of jobs outside the United States. That is why the Chinese and the rest of the world are laughing at us.
Thank you Stephen Moore
3
I have certainly become disillusioned with the SCOTUS. They are clearly partisan, and this decision, just like the Citizens United, is deeply disturbing. They can't even rise above the partisan politics on an issue that threatens not only our country, but the entire world. It's unfathomable that a small group of judges can play such a heavy hand in determining the fate of our planet.
11
So, five conservatives on the bench voting as a "bloc" is partisanship, but the four liberals voting as a "bloc" is not. Thank you for clearing that up for me.
6
I feel like we all are in a car that fell into a river and is slowly going down to the bottom. Roberts is at the wheel and just locked all the doors.
I feel like I am going to throw up, not out of disgust (I'm way beyond that already), but out of sheer despair.
I feel like I am going to throw up, not out of disgust (I'm way beyond that already), but out of sheer despair.
13
Cal Thomas, print media's version of Rush Limbaugh, wrote recently that Democrats offer "a steady stream of gloom, doom and pessimism." That "America's best days are behind us and they weren't so good after all." Yet Trump says "Make America Great Again," "again" being the operative word. Cruz and Rubio paint some of the gloomiest canvases of America in their rants against Obama.
Cal has it wrong. Liberals hope to get America to live up to its claims of being extraordinary. Republican candidates wish to maintain rich, white, male, and corporate dominion over the the people. In other words, the Republican candidates are intent on improving nothing but wealth accumulation for the already wealthy. Worse, they are intent on returning America to the "good old days." And the good old days includes continuing the indiscriminate polluting of our land, air, and water. Hence, the 5-4 vote by the Supreme Court. Roberts may claim the court is a-political. It's not. It never was. Mr. Roberts and the other eight members are human beings full of biases, prejudices, belief systems that favor themselves. Those characteristics bend heavily right these days. So, for the sake of the coal industry and all of corporate America, the people's "right" to breath foul air, the people's "right" to have our cities flooded, and the people's "right" to ruin the earth, remains undiminished.
Cal has it wrong. Liberals hope to get America to live up to its claims of being extraordinary. Republican candidates wish to maintain rich, white, male, and corporate dominion over the the people. In other words, the Republican candidates are intent on improving nothing but wealth accumulation for the already wealthy. Worse, they are intent on returning America to the "good old days." And the good old days includes continuing the indiscriminate polluting of our land, air, and water. Hence, the 5-4 vote by the Supreme Court. Roberts may claim the court is a-political. It's not. It never was. Mr. Roberts and the other eight members are human beings full of biases, prejudices, belief systems that favor themselves. Those characteristics bend heavily right these days. So, for the sake of the coal industry and all of corporate America, the people's "right" to breath foul air, the people's "right" to have our cities flooded, and the people's "right" to ruin the earth, remains undiminished.
7
Alway interesting to read comment about Supreme Court decisions. If you are a conservative a ruling du jour that renders interpretation of the law contrary to your beliefs is all wrong; the court is a trader to the cause. Reverse the scenario and there is outrage against the ruling from those that hold a liberal point of view. If only the court could make rulings that pleased all of the people all of the time.
2
Yes, and all the liberal democrat justices do the exactly same thing. Of course the NYTEB believes the liberal justices of the court to always be on the correct side of any issue as long as it fits their liberal agenda. They could care less about the actual constitutionality of the issue. What a surprise. And let's also be clear about this: public opinion has nothing to do with the actual constitutionality of a law. And that includes the opinion of the NYTEB. That is up to the court to decide. Theirs is the only opinion that matters, and they have decided.
4
Gore v Bush, Citizen United and now this decision. And the pundits wonder why the citizens have lost faith in Government Institutions.
The Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision led to the Civil War.
When the citizens of this country lose complete faith in our system of government the chaos will begin. Right now it is peaceful as the anti-establishment sentiment is the reality of our politics today.
Two of our three branches of government are corrupted by the influence of money and special interests. And the third branch may be put on the list of endangered species if either of the GOP's two leading candidates for that high office get elected.
This court's recent hat trick (three incredible decisions) leaves a stain on our country that I cannot explain to my grandchildren. The world we leave them has been permanently diminished when it comes to honest government and protection of this fragile ecosystem we call Mother Earth.
Shame on you John Roberts and shame on this Supreme Court that fuels the disintegration of a country that was once a beacon of hope to the many and is now an a compliance to the monied interests of the right.
This Supreme Court is a joke; I am not laughing.
The Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision led to the Civil War.
When the citizens of this country lose complete faith in our system of government the chaos will begin. Right now it is peaceful as the anti-establishment sentiment is the reality of our politics today.
Two of our three branches of government are corrupted by the influence of money and special interests. And the third branch may be put on the list of endangered species if either of the GOP's two leading candidates for that high office get elected.
This court's recent hat trick (three incredible decisions) leaves a stain on our country that I cannot explain to my grandchildren. The world we leave them has been permanently diminished when it comes to honest government and protection of this fragile ecosystem we call Mother Earth.
Shame on you John Roberts and shame on this Supreme Court that fuels the disintegration of a country that was once a beacon of hope to the many and is now an a compliance to the monied interests of the right.
This Supreme Court is a joke; I am not laughing.
13
You do realize that the Court did NOT strike anything down. Rather, they issued a "stay" so that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals can render it's decision, which is pending, right?
But, hey - never let a good chance to agitate and divide our nation go by, right?
But, hey - never let a good chance to agitate and divide our nation go by, right?
7
There's nothing "extraordinary" about the decision. Any time the court's right-wing ideologues have to choose between what's good for Americans and what's good for the corporate oligarchs they come down on the side of the latter.
It pains me to think that I went to the same law school as the court's "liar in chief" Sammy Alito, and "half-a-deck" Clarence.
It pains me to think that I went to the same law school as the court's "liar in chief" Sammy Alito, and "half-a-deck" Clarence.
4
In fairness, the NYT Editorial Board should first declare that it is strongly partisan and progressive in its views, before it critiques a Supreme Court decision.
7
Wow. The Supreme Court puts a temporary stay on an EPA order that. if executed, would destroy over a trillion dollars worth of private property, thereby allowing the legality of the order to be properly judged before such damage is done. Talk about judicial overreach!
5
195 nations signed the accord to reduce emissions. Global Climate Change is real and it is going to affect millions. When the Supreme Court ruled that corporate $ is free speech in citizens united and now States don't have to comply with the Clean Air act, it is clear and obvious where the court stands, the court's policy is that large corporations or those who have the power to exert enormous influence on our political process have the right to do so.
Historically the Roberts court will go down as one of the worst in history. They will be remembered as a court who completely sold out the citizens of the country they were elected to serve.
Historically the Roberts court will go down as one of the worst in history. They will be remembered as a court who completely sold out the citizens of the country they were elected to serve.
8
If the five justices, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito, are successful in unraveling the 195 country first-ever universal, legally binding global climate deal they will not be remembered as saviors of the coal industry. The coal industry is fast going out of business with rapid coal mine closures and coal company bankruptcies. Nothing can save it.
This activist court will have joined the cabal of global climate change deniers foreign and domestic, such as Putin of Russia, Salman of Saudi, Abbott of Australia, and ALL 2016 Republican candidates for the Presidency and their financial backers such as the Koch brothers, Exxon-Mobile, and other such anti-science individuals and corporations.
If their efforts to block the Paris agreement bears fruit of destruction, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito will be remembered in world history for using their power to cause untold harm and human suffering.
This activist court will have joined the cabal of global climate change deniers foreign and domestic, such as Putin of Russia, Salman of Saudi, Abbott of Australia, and ALL 2016 Republican candidates for the Presidency and their financial backers such as the Koch brothers, Exxon-Mobile, and other such anti-science individuals and corporations.
If their efforts to block the Paris agreement bears fruit of destruction, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito will be remembered in world history for using their power to cause untold harm and human suffering.
8
Supreme Justice is blindfolded indeed: to factual evidence, to 'unintended' but easily foreseen consequences, to the needs of American society, and to the blatantly heavy gold-plated thumb on the scales of justice.
1
I thought after the Gay Marriage ruling this was the great Supreme Court ever. Most here turn so quickly.
3
Breathtaking hypocrisy. How do these people sleep at night? Oh yeah - Ambien.
1
I am confused. To me is not a question whether it is a good idea to limit emissions or not. It probably is. Let the congress pass a law that does what President Obama wants to do. If congress is unwilling or unable to do it and the american people want it done, lets get a new congress. This is how democracy is supposed to work. It is frustrating, slow and maybe inefficient but....it is still the best form of governing.
4
Just how serious is "The Supreme Court’s extraordinary decision on Tuesday to temporarily block the Obama administration’s effort to combat global warming"? While I agree it is very ominous and speaks once again of an "activist" corporate court, I do not understand from your editorial what the legal process is that would explain how "temporarily" the block is. In the past the Obama Administration has requested, and been granted, an expedited judicial hearing of a case before the court. I presume that will happen here. The question for me and your readers is how long will this take and will this undermine the Paris accords on global climate change?
1
The Court's decision was about the limits of executive power. They say that the President can only go so far before abusing his power over the states. They are not opposing climate change initiatives. They are merely saying that there's a right way and a wrong way to go about them. Climate change advocates show no respect for the process. As far as they are concerned, the President can draw up state budgets to limit carbon emissions and imprison governors who don't comply. They do not understand that sometimes the ends don't justify the means.
4
This is predictable, part of our fragile body of law built on endless 5-4 decisions by the Supremes. And it is a reminder that the Republican party is not interested in governing and in the future, just out to smash and grab right now.
1
Perhaps the Republicans are actually reading the constitution rather than allowing an overreaching President to continue to use executive orders and overstepping the legal authority provided the departments of government. This President has created a regime of illegal actions by the WH and the department of government. His frustration with Congress may be legitimate or as likely his poor leadership but in the end, it does not allow him to bypass the Constitution. The real partisan problem on the Court in this case are the Democratic appointed members. This has nothing to do with the merits of the idea but a President run amok
4
The claim against partisanship by Roberts is laughable. If there is not partisanship, why do we see the same 5 justices, time and time again, standing in unison on decisions that align to the conservative agenda?
If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck....
If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck....
123
One must always watch what they do, because what they say isn't worth the energy content of their hot air.
I guess its the same partisanship expressed by the liberal justices where we see the same 4, time and again, standing in unison to put the intention of a matter over what the law says about that matter.
1
Are the four reliably liberal justices any less partisan? Or is the problem only when you disagree with their views?
2
The Republican defense of the SC, as exemplified herein by another writer, is predicated on some factual misstatements while ignoring the President's paramount duty to implement foreign policy. First, you must be joking when you claim energy prices will go up. Get out of the house a little-gas prices are dropping weekly. The DC Circuit a bunch of liberals? Ha! We're not that ignorant. We know other countries have to get on board. That's why Obama is trying to provide leadership. From the front. Ok, GOP? Finally, Obama has no choice but to act alone. Just like the Court, Congress has made no secret of it's carefully planned political agenda, public welfare and safety be damned. Finally, doesn't the coal industry see the handwriting on the wall anyway? Hey fellows? Invest some of your easy money to clean up the plants. It's a routine business expense. Burning dinosaurs makes you the dinosaur of the energy industry. Stop fighting the future. Or go the way of your fuel.
131
Either the constitution authorizes the president to act alone - in which case legislation was never necescary - or it does not, in which case acting alone is an abuse of power.
There is no constitutional provision for the president acting alone when he feels it is necessary.
If you make court cases about the purported merits of your ideological posistion,
you seriously risk being on the wrong side of a streak of ideology driven decisions in the future.
There is no constitutional provision for the president acting alone when he feels it is necessary.
If you make court cases about the purported merits of your ideological posistion,
you seriously risk being on the wrong side of a streak of ideology driven decisions in the future.
The same 'justice' which turned the WELL-REGULATED militia stipulated by the Constitution into an UN-regulated militia, now sees fit to UN-regulate the clean air stipulated by previous governmental actions. I see no 'common sense' in either case. I see ideology at work, and at work to the detriment of the health, welfare and well-being of ordinary Americans. I would very happily sign an impeachment petition.
160
WELL- into UN- ! and ! again!
Love&Blessing&Laughter and Hurrah!
Love&Blessing&Laughter and Hurrah!
Conelly
You have a reading comprehension problem...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,,,,,, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,,,,,, shall not be infringed."
Why do we use commas?
Use commas to separate independent clauses when they are joined by any of these seven coordinating conjunctions: and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet. 2. Use commas after introductory a) clauses, b) phrases, or c) words that come before the main clause.
You have a reading comprehension problem...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,,,,,, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,,,,,, shall not be infringed."
Why do we use commas?
Use commas to separate independent clauses when they are joined by any of these seven coordinating conjunctions: and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet. 2. Use commas after introductory a) clauses, b) phrases, or c) words that come before the main clause.
1
The Constitution does not "stipulate" a well-regulated militia. Read the second amendment again. It's short.
1
I understand and accept the legal mechanics and the sought-for balance of our three branches of government. However, in this period of absolute antagonism between strictly partisan camps in Congress (let alone the residual factional warfare within the Republican camp; which the TP extremists have essentially already won), and the apparent absolute antagonism between the Republican Congress and this administration, the Court's unprecedented decision is correctly perceived as mere Republican piling on rather than simple application of a legal precept. Mr. Roberts' lament perhaps suggests a nascent conscience or a concern for history's characterization of "his" court.
57
A lot of people, including this independent, are very unhappy about Roe v wade. That issue should be returned to the states.
But what goes around, comes around. Liberals have accepted an imperial Supreme Court and even celebrated when it goes their way. But an imperial Supreme Court is a threat to democracy, and, even a threat to liberals!
I have a mild suggestion for a constitutional amendment.
"No law passed by any state or by Congress shall be overturned by anything less than a two thirds majority of the Supreme Court".
That will give democracy some room to play. And personally I believe that this recent decision, Citizens United, and Roe v wade should all be overturned.
Return some power to the people!
But what goes around, comes around. Liberals have accepted an imperial Supreme Court and even celebrated when it goes their way. But an imperial Supreme Court is a threat to democracy, and, even a threat to liberals!
I have a mild suggestion for a constitutional amendment.
"No law passed by any state or by Congress shall be overturned by anything less than a two thirds majority of the Supreme Court".
That will give democracy some room to play. And personally I believe that this recent decision, Citizens United, and Roe v wade should all be overturned.
Return some power to the people!
1
"Libertarians" have deliberately exploited the separation of powers to impose paralysis on public policy.
Yes the President has been antagonistic towards Congress. What was it he said early on in his Presidency? Oh yes, something like I won, sit down and shut up. When you start out a relationship like that, and continue on that track for a couple of years, you really can't expect the opposition party to play nice when they regain power.
The President has no one to blame but himself for the atmosphere in D.C. He poisoned it initially, and now the Dem's are angry because the Rep's don't want to play nice. Go figure.
The President has no one to blame but himself for the atmosphere in D.C. He poisoned it initially, and now the Dem's are angry because the Rep's don't want to play nice. Go figure.
What we are watching is the slow demise of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hysteria. This was originally sold by a group at the UN as a way to gain leverage over various political entities, but then succeeded beyond their wildest dreams when a handful of scientists got on board. At a time when grant proposals deemed to be "meritable" got funded at about a 20% rate and those promising to show global warming to be real experience a funding rate of 80+%, it becomes obvious how the unethical flocked to the opportunity.
>
What has happened since is nothing short of breathtaking as lies abound and those who know nothing about science, having a profound need to believe usually based on their politics, defend AGW with endless energy, enthusiasm, propaganda and ignorance. A classic example of this is how many still cite with religious zeal how 97% of scientists believe in AGW even after it was shown that this was a manufactured number (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-... and how further attempts to defend this 97% failed to be publishable (http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/C400/2013/esdd-4-C400-2013.pdf) indicating the original claim to be bunk. The real number of scientists who believe AGW is closer to 0.3%.
>
What the SCOTUS has done is nothing more than to shut down the political manipulation of an industry based on bad science in order to let the lawful process occur.
>
What has happened since is nothing short of breathtaking as lies abound and those who know nothing about science, having a profound need to believe usually based on their politics, defend AGW with endless energy, enthusiasm, propaganda and ignorance. A classic example of this is how many still cite with religious zeal how 97% of scientists believe in AGW even after it was shown that this was a manufactured number (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-... and how further attempts to defend this 97% failed to be publishable (http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/C400/2013/esdd-4-C400-2013.pdf) indicating the original claim to be bunk. The real number of scientists who believe AGW is closer to 0.3%.
>
What the SCOTUS has done is nothing more than to shut down the political manipulation of an industry based on bad science in order to let the lawful process occur.
34
What's nothing short of breathtaking is the fact that the first of your links is busted and the second takes one to another bunch of links with no direction about where to find the 'salient' points.
What is also nothing short of breathtaking is your assertion that the 'real number of scientists who believe AGW is closer to 0.3%.' First, that's not a number, it's a percentage. And where on earth did you come up with that figure? Are you saying that only 3 out of every 1,000 climate scientists (we are talking about climate scientists, correct?) believe that humans are playing a significant role in climate change? Are you sure about that?
What is also nothing short of breathtaking is your assertion that the 'real number of scientists who believe AGW is closer to 0.3%.' First, that's not a number, it's a percentage. And where on earth did you come up with that figure? Are you saying that only 3 out of every 1,000 climate scientists (we are talking about climate scientists, correct?) believe that humans are playing a significant role in climate change? Are you sure about that?
2
The only scientists who don't acknowledge the reality of climate change believe that God will intervene to stop it.
2
You need only be aware of what goes on around you in your own neighborhood to know climate change is real, and you need only know a small bit about carbon to understand why it's so likely human energy consumption is to blame. Even if you don't believe the evidence in front of you, it can't be denied that burning massive amounts of fuel isn't good for organic life.
2
The Editors of this paper should yet again be ashamed of themselves. The Supreme Court does not exist to legislate laws for whatever policies you support. Accusing the court of being partisan (you single out Republican appointees) when the court for once knock's down (only temporarily at this point) one of the Democrat's agenda items, but then ignoring how often (more often than not) the court and those same appointees have upheld President Obama's choices over the last several years - calls into question the ability of this paper to remain objective. Seriously, this is disturbing and harmful for democracy in this country. Again, the NYT's should be ashamed.
41
Disagree completely. Justice Roberts may be one of the smartest people in the country, but fails to understand that perception is reality. The court is required to respect the rule-making process until the time of a full hearing, which for the Supreme Court is oral argument & decision. To issue a preliminary stay is to presume the rule is unconstitutional before any hearing is held. A completely unjustified result for a court that prides itself on deliberation.
1
"calls into question the ability of this paper to remain objective"
The ability would be relevant only if there was a desire. I see no sign of it. Maybe some of the Op Ed writers are thoughtful. But the Editorial Board has long abandoned objectivity in favor of partisanship.
The ability would be relevant only if there was a desire. I see no sign of it. Maybe some of the Op Ed writers are thoughtful. But the Editorial Board has long abandoned objectivity in favor of partisanship.
2
You're right. The Court does not exist to legislate laws. That's why it was totally inappropriate for it to prevent a regulation duly issued by the Executive branch of government under its authority as previously confirmed by Court decisions allowing the EPA to regulate carbon emissions.
The USA is an unreliable negotiating partner internationally on issues where our right wing wants to impose its views. Climate change is one. Women's reproductive rights is another. And international trade policy falls victim to both right wing and left wing domestic politics. Some leadership!
The USA is an unreliable negotiating partner internationally on issues where our right wing wants to impose its views. Climate change is one. Women's reproductive rights is another. And international trade policy falls victim to both right wing and left wing domestic politics. Some leadership!
1
The Republican justices are only going to get it when the ocean waters begin to lap up against the steps of the Supreme Court. Go to a water map of Washington http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/washington.shtml and you will find that it will be in the near future.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
www.InquiryAbraham.com
27
With their breathtaking and virulently partisan ideology, the right wing cabal ono SCOTUS would simply issue an edict expanding their current 250 "perimeter" to include the ocean waters. The fact that their extremist and willfully ignorant arrogance will not stop these waters clearly doesn't faze them - ideology over all, as usual, in the disgraceful Roberts court.
1
David... child
Not because we burn coal...
Not because we burn coal...
1
The stay by the supreme court was the proper move. Let the lower courts do their job decide on the case on the merits. If the EPA gets past the courts the stay lifts. If the EPA fails, then they have to go back to the drawing board and come up with an acceptable plan. That is how the system works.
33
The system working is antithetical to the dear Editorial Boards knee-jerk approval of anything that the Obama administration does to bypass the normal and conventional.
The Editorial Board seems to forget the reasons why injunctions are permitted.
First, irreparable harm. They cannot argue, on the one hand, that this will be a sweeping change whereby the interests of coal...be it clean or otherwise...are completely discounted...and then turn and suggest no chance of massive irreparable harm. Hypocites they are for doing so, and blatant, too.
Second is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail. The Courts are qualified to decide this, and the Supreme Court is the one that is, supremely, in a position to do so. And, since the case's original plaintiffs appealed Appeals Court's denial of the injunction to our highest court perfectly within their legal right, the Court had the power to review. And on review, it was seen by a majority of the court, in accordance with its precedents, that the plaintiffs were more likely than not to be able to prevail with their arguments.
This decision allows the lower courts to hear the case on its merits, proper due-process venues that the Obama administration seens desperately trying to avoid.
It is fitting and proper for the Supreme Court to have acted this way as the core issue is whether or not the regulatory agencies, using executive powers, have the right to make law.
Bluntly...They are not.
The Editorial Board seems to forget the reasons why injunctions are permitted.
First, irreparable harm. They cannot argue, on the one hand, that this will be a sweeping change whereby the interests of coal...be it clean or otherwise...are completely discounted...and then turn and suggest no chance of massive irreparable harm. Hypocites they are for doing so, and blatant, too.
Second is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail. The Courts are qualified to decide this, and the Supreme Court is the one that is, supremely, in a position to do so. And, since the case's original plaintiffs appealed Appeals Court's denial of the injunction to our highest court perfectly within their legal right, the Court had the power to review. And on review, it was seen by a majority of the court, in accordance with its precedents, that the plaintiffs were more likely than not to be able to prevail with their arguments.
This decision allows the lower courts to hear the case on its merits, proper due-process venues that the Obama administration seens desperately trying to avoid.
It is fitting and proper for the Supreme Court to have acted this way as the core issue is whether or not the regulatory agencies, using executive powers, have the right to make law.
Bluntly...They are not.
1
It's very troubling that there were 5 votes to issue the stay--presumably the same Koch-friendly justices who gave us Citizens United. I can see the ruling now: environmental regulations and climate science are matters of public debate, so pollution should be considered a form of corporate "speech" protected by the First Amendment against any government caps or limits.
And maybe they'd have a point: most of what passes for political speech these days involves belching and spewing toxic substances into the atmosphere.
And maybe they'd have a point: most of what passes for political speech these days involves belching and spewing toxic substances into the atmosphere.
72
Do you have any evidence that the Koch family influenced the decisions of the five justices?
Please be specific...
Otherwise you might be accuses of dreaming of vast, right-wing conspiracies without any facts to back you up.
Please be specific...
Otherwise you might be accuses of dreaming of vast, right-wing conspiracies without any facts to back you up.
2
" “cap and trade” programs that allow them to buy and sell permits to pollute."
Can I buy a permit that allows me to throw recyclable waste in my regular trash can so I don't have to roll out two cans? That's basically what cap and trade is doing.
Can I buy a permit that allows me to throw recyclable waste in my regular trash can so I don't have to roll out two cans? That's basically what cap and trade is doing.
4
You should be happy... cap and trade made al gore rich!
It's a prog redistribution scheme
It's a prog redistribution scheme
3
In my town, that is exactly what is going on with the pay-as-you throw system of refuse collection.
It's just another tax scheme whereby money is extracted from the citizens for the politicians to throw that their favored lobbyists, contractors, and union supporters.
It's just another tax scheme whereby money is extracted from the citizens for the politicians to throw that their favored lobbyists, contractors, and union supporters.
1
Are the fates of most species and a habitable planet literally at stake in the next presidential election? What if a Republican was elected and made appointments to the Supreme Court? Would anything be done about climate change? Might inaction here tip the balance in the world producing apathy and irreversible consequences? Never has a presidential candidate’s political party—and those running for election in the House and the Senate—mattered more. Republicans deny reality and science, while fantasizing a return to the past, at the expense of addressing present and future challenges—the repercussions of which will extend long past our lifetimes, if not defeated.
82
This administration declined to address climate change when it had a majority. That was democracy in action. It then decided it needed a legacy and so attempted to do it without Congress. The Court has slowed this down to allow a ruling on the merits before damage is done to interested parties. This is also our constitutional democracy in action.
1
Most people don't know how much climate change is already baked into the future at the present concentration of greenhouse gases in the air.
Pseudo scientist
What is a prog watermelon , green on the outside red in the middle, is elected?
Poor people freezing to death, if they don't starve from increased food costs first because of the un needed war on coal, cheap energy and jobs it creates
All that to perpetuate a hoax used to scare low info voters
See Gruber's comments
What is a prog watermelon , green on the outside red in the middle, is elected?
Poor people freezing to death, if they don't starve from increased food costs first because of the un needed war on coal, cheap energy and jobs it creates
All that to perpetuate a hoax used to scare low info voters
See Gruber's comments
Like all too many of the Times' editorials, the emphasis in this Editorial is on gratuitous Republican bashing.
The Supreme Court acted because of its perception of the rule of law. That is the role of the Court. It is not supposed to address the merits of this effort by President Obama and the EPA to reduce carbon emissions, it is supposed to act on whether or not these efforts conform to the rule of law.
The Federal government often does overreach, and it is the court's job to reign it in. The legal issues in this case are too complex for the majority of us to pass judgement on.
The majority of the court is not acting because they were appointed by Republican presidents, as this editorial states; rather they are upholding a stricter view of the word of law than some might like. Many of us legitimately feel that is what the court should be doing; it is the court's job to interpret the law, not to set policy.
One gets the strong impression that the court is in no way playing partisan politics. But I can't say the same for this overwrought anti-Republican editorial.
The Supreme Court acted because of its perception of the rule of law. That is the role of the Court. It is not supposed to address the merits of this effort by President Obama and the EPA to reduce carbon emissions, it is supposed to act on whether or not these efforts conform to the rule of law.
The Federal government often does overreach, and it is the court's job to reign it in. The legal issues in this case are too complex for the majority of us to pass judgement on.
The majority of the court is not acting because they were appointed by Republican presidents, as this editorial states; rather they are upholding a stricter view of the word of law than some might like. Many of us legitimately feel that is what the court should be doing; it is the court's job to interpret the law, not to set policy.
One gets the strong impression that the court is in no way playing partisan politics. But I can't say the same for this overwrought anti-Republican editorial.
28
The Opus Dei boys on this bench don't even understand that natural law enforces itself automatically without subjective human intervention.
It is interesting that the NY Times Editorial Board, like many of its opinion columnists, have the exact same liberal biases.
One has to wonder whether their knees jerk in unison or in harmony.
Since, there appears to be little difference in the opinions offered, there is ample evidence that they are in unison, and possibly coordinated by a single "conductor" with a baton.
George Soros? Barack Obama? Hillary Clinton? Perhaps it is just a vast, left-wing conspiracy.
One has to wonder whether their knees jerk in unison or in harmony.
Since, there appears to be little difference in the opinions offered, there is ample evidence that they are in unison, and possibly coordinated by a single "conductor" with a baton.
George Soros? Barack Obama? Hillary Clinton? Perhaps it is just a vast, left-wing conspiracy.
1
Sorry but the GOP no longer support the interests of mainstream America. Instead they have chosen to support climate change deniers, anti abortion terrorists, evangelical magical thinkers, gun fetishists, billionaires, CEOs and corporations (because as we all know corporations are people too!) The GOP deserves to bashed early, often and over and over again until they wake up and smell the coffee. I make it a point to bash them myself at every opportunity.
The supreme hypocrisy of Scalia, supposedly catholic, ignoring Pope Francis' call to protect the environment and the Paris Climate Accord. Scalia's word games are not intellectual exercises. Neither are his opinions. It is past time for him to step down.
51
If John Kennedy's denial of the Pope's authority in matters political was sufficient for the body politic in the 1960s, wouldn't it stand to reason that Justic Scalia is protected by the same declaration?
Or are we, Li'' Lil, again playing the "one rule for thee, and another for me" game again.
Perhaps it's time for YOU to step down.
Or are we, Li'' Lil, again playing the "one rule for thee, and another for me" game again.
Perhaps it's time for YOU to step down.
Split in ideological grounds 5 Republican and 4 Democratic it is another example of a broken legal system where ideology and not law are used by 9 unelected and unaccountable people who get to control every aspect of our lives. It is time to overhaul the Supreme Court or get rid of it entirely and replace it with something else.
18
But isn't it the same court which legalized gay marriage and has yet to overturn Roe v wade?
3
Good idea, BK, let's get rid of one of the three co-equal branches of government! I'm sure you would think it absurd if someone proposed to get rid of the executive branc
Your post points to exactly why the Supreme Court is so important.
Proving once again (as if Americans needed reminding) that elections DO have consequences.
98
The GOP Supreme Court - just another plutocratic, corrupt American institution.
48
tony child, their the last bastion of sanity in the obozo years, even though they blew obozo care rulings
The 5 have now shown that they are totally an activist, partisan political court. They have, solely for political reasons, overthrown established legislation, and, worse, ventured into an area where the Constitution doesn't recognize the Court as having any authority: the conduct of Foreign Relations.
Worse, they, in their religious fervor, have sided with the anti-science Global Warming Deniers.
The Republicans have, with the appointments of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and George W Bush, shattered the checks and balances that a non-partisan SCOTUS ensures. If the GOP captures the WH, it will lock the Court into a similar pattern for the next 30-40 years. I'll probably be dead by then but my children will have to live with their deconstructing virtually every civil liberty this nation is built upon. The Kochs and Waltons will "win" but they will win a desolate corrupt landscape, a Somalia or a Mexico. They think they'll control it, but they won't. And like the ordinary Mexicans, who see mayors killed the day after they take office, we'll have bloody chaos.
Worse, they, in their religious fervor, have sided with the anti-science Global Warming Deniers.
The Republicans have, with the appointments of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and George W Bush, shattered the checks and balances that a non-partisan SCOTUS ensures. If the GOP captures the WH, it will lock the Court into a similar pattern for the next 30-40 years. I'll probably be dead by then but my children will have to live with their deconstructing virtually every civil liberty this nation is built upon. The Kochs and Waltons will "win" but they will win a desolate corrupt landscape, a Somalia or a Mexico. They think they'll control it, but they won't. And like the ordinary Mexicans, who see mayors killed the day after they take office, we'll have bloody chaos.
19
Far from shattering the checks an balance, Daddy, far from shattering them.
They are actually reinforcing them by being the firm anchor in the history of our nation whereby "democracy" his held in check by the rule of law and the conservatism of the court.
The court moves slowly, as intended, by the nature of its composition. It IS a political organization as its membership is comprised of people nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They are confirmed subject only to impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.
The members represent the political winds of the past and tasked with saving, under the law, that which is best of the past from the vagaries of the current political storms and fads.
Pure, unfettered democracy is a tyranny of the majority, free to pass draconian laws only to change their minds and pass others.
Our system of the rule of law puts the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of constitutionality, the very law that assures all Americans protection from the dictatorial and capricious whims of the out-of-control executive.
And what evidence do you have that the Kochs and Waltons have designs on the control of America? Accusations from MoveOn.org? Talking Points Memo? The Editorial Board of the NY Times?
Don't have anything to offer other than conjecture based on conjecture? Then you can be accused of trying to create a vast, "winged" conspiracy where none exists...
...Just like Hillary has tried to do for decades.
They are actually reinforcing them by being the firm anchor in the history of our nation whereby "democracy" his held in check by the rule of law and the conservatism of the court.
The court moves slowly, as intended, by the nature of its composition. It IS a political organization as its membership is comprised of people nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They are confirmed subject only to impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.
The members represent the political winds of the past and tasked with saving, under the law, that which is best of the past from the vagaries of the current political storms and fads.
Pure, unfettered democracy is a tyranny of the majority, free to pass draconian laws only to change their minds and pass others.
Our system of the rule of law puts the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of constitutionality, the very law that assures all Americans protection from the dictatorial and capricious whims of the out-of-control executive.
And what evidence do you have that the Kochs and Waltons have designs on the control of America? Accusations from MoveOn.org? Talking Points Memo? The Editorial Board of the NY Times?
Don't have anything to offer other than conjecture based on conjecture? Then you can be accused of trying to create a vast, "winged" conspiracy where none exists...
...Just like Hillary has tried to do for decades.
"We don't work as Democrats or Republicans." I don't believe that statement. At the very least the Supreme court is working for corporations.
Climate change should be the top issue in America and the world. It is the one thing that connects us all, we don't have to like it, that does not make it any less true. It is rarely discussed in debates. I wonder if the leaders really understand the consequences of doing nothing. If they do. that is just criminal. This is one issue when ideology is not he deciding factor, facts are. It's is a shame that facts do not matter in our political system any longer. Will
Climate change should be the top issue in America and the world. It is the one thing that connects us all, we don't have to like it, that does not make it any less true. It is rarely discussed in debates. I wonder if the leaders really understand the consequences of doing nothing. If they do. that is just criminal. This is one issue when ideology is not he deciding factor, facts are. It's is a shame that facts do not matter in our political system any longer. Will
31
Always claims of partisanship when the decision goes agains your beliefs. So when you say it was partisanship do you also include the voting block of Democrats?
I guess the Koch brothers wanted Obamacare to go forward to stuff their pockets.
Sometimes the Constitution is just the Constitution.
I guess the Koch brothers wanted Obamacare to go forward to stuff their pockets.
Sometimes the Constitution is just the Constitution.
12
The EPA cannot regulate commerce. It was created by vote of Congress, and any changes in the scope of that agencies regulation can only be granted by Congress.
The President knows that, he must. He was a constitutional college professor at one time. Now he is like a petulant child.
The President knows that, he must. He was a constitutional college professor at one time. Now he is like a petulant child.
14
Reality check climate change is about to make huge leap forward when new forms transportation have come into main stream .Projects like hyper loop will change everything in near future . Emagin the transportation of large shipping done now with tractor trailers thru the hyper loop. Large cargo ships will no longer be needed with under water hyperloops crossing oceans. Future is brite an its not so far off,tomorrow will be here soon then most know
Jerry Lee... are they powered by unicorns?
Do unicorns work for free?
Do unicorns work for free?
The 5 justices on the Supreme Court like all of the republicans running for president are dangerous. The denial of Climate change and the need for legislation to improve our chances to save our world are an example of the ignorance of the GOP bought and sold Supreme Court , senate and House of Representatives. This next election is crucial to save our planet. VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS it's the only hope our children have.
13
Linda
I will never vote for a prog, it's the only hope my kids and grandkids have
Progs a re FAR more dangerous than the climate hoax
I will never vote for a prog, it's the only hope my kids and grandkids have
Progs a re FAR more dangerous than the climate hoax
Always strikes me as outrageous when Republicans say they will not " support activist " Judges for the Supreme Court or any other Court . Yet , they are enthralled and profess love for Antonia Scalia who supports their agenda of big business , corporate dominion and dominance and depriving humans of freedom of choice over their bodies and right to marry. These people sitting on this bench gave us George W. Bush and all the havoc he wrought as well as Citizen's United which determined that donating unlimited money to politicians and their campaigns was a first amendment right! Decisions like these should inspire and infuriate rational progressive thinking Americans to vote Democratic simply to insure that no one like Scalia, Roberts or Thomas are appointed to Supreme Court again.
17
Thank you - good points.
(grammar fix: "no one...is")
Mary Lynch Mobilia
(grammar fix: "no one...is")
Mary Lynch Mobilia
Check the corporate law offices and not the offices of public defenders if you want to see where the kids of the Republican Gang of Five are and will wind up. That tells the story.
I'm tired of these Supreme Court articles, the Court are, in the wisdom of the NYT editorial board, collective sages for the ages when they uphold gay marriage or save Obama cares skin, but mysteriously transmogrify into partisan political hacks and idiots when they render a decision that is contra to hard left orthodoxy, which is it?
18
Science is neither right nor left.
These five stooges will set back progess against climate change globally.
These five stooges will set back progess against climate change globally.
The Court did not go after 'climate change' even though it may seem that way or the way the NYT wants to portray it.
The Court is reacting to the possible over reach of the EPA and the governments use of regulation to make law as opposed to Congress making law.
The Court is reacting to the possible over reach of the EPA and the governments use of regulation to make law as opposed to Congress making law.
14
Checks and balances. As hard as it is for the AGW faithful find it to fathom, this is exactly what the framers of the US Constitution had in mind.
13
These five stooges believe that God will prevent humans from wrecking this world. They are religious delusionals.
My god what a calamity you would think that the world has ended! Thank you Supreme Court. There seems to be absolutely no rational thought on this topic of climate change. It goes from how many angles fit on the head of a pin to the world is ending now! Yes there is global warming this decade anyway.
5
Jamie,
You have the chance to step on the brake of your run-away car, that you are driving, before you plow into thousands if not millions of people, Instead you mash the accelerator and demand more speed, cause nothing is happening yet!
Remember to explain that to your god when the calamity ends this world.
I agree, rational thought on this topic is beyond many of our inhabitants.
You have the chance to step on the brake of your run-away car, that you are driving, before you plow into thousands if not millions of people, Instead you mash the accelerator and demand more speed, cause nothing is happening yet!
Remember to explain that to your god when the calamity ends this world.
I agree, rational thought on this topic is beyond many of our inhabitants.
1
Right angles?
Left angles?
The dear Editorial Board has become utterly predictable...They always angle left and Democratic...and Clintonian.
Left angles?
The dear Editorial Board has become utterly predictable...They always angle left and Democratic...and Clintonian.
Hey, when Bernie is blown out in the General, the SCOTUS will become 6-3, maybe 7-2 Republican appointed. So all you idealistic optimists get acclimated to it; you won't even have to wait until the SCOTUS releases its decisions to know the outcomes. It will just be taken as given, a priori knowledge (i.e., you won't have to get off the couch to know the answer).
5
Is America ready to lead the world or not? Obviously, it isn't even ready to cooperate with the world on saving the world.
We have die-hard Republicans who believe that global warming is a hoax, that it is a "liberal" scare so as to do some nefarious thing although they can't describe what that would be. Now we have a Supreme Court that CLAIMS impartiality and appears to be politically partial to the party that put them in office.
We either face the future and face the facts of global warming, or we won't have a future.
We have die-hard Republicans who believe that global warming is a hoax, that it is a "liberal" scare so as to do some nefarious thing although they can't describe what that would be. Now we have a Supreme Court that CLAIMS impartiality and appears to be politically partial to the party that put them in office.
We either face the future and face the facts of global warming, or we won't have a future.
9
The US leads the world in enabling religious psychopathy.
1
The president had no right to commit the USA to an international agreement without the advice and consent of Congress. The most important question isn't whether those other 195 countries can trust the United States; I'm quite certain we can't trust many if not most of them. The more important question is whether the citizens of the United States can trust their president to "faithfully execute the laws" as he has sworn to do. That we obviously can not and the editorial writers know it but support his actions anyway because they are ideologically in sync with him. It's a very good thing that the Supreme Court vote counts and the NYT editorial board's doesn't.
7
John Casteel,
Yes, silly POTUS. Trying to lead and save America from itself. John knows what's up and is not worried so we need not be either. Hey John, did have you noticed how low the water is getting in the lakes? Have you noticed that they haven't frozen this year?! But it's all good. Till it isn't. Have you had some of that tasty Flint water yet? Are you sure?
Yes, silly POTUS. Trying to lead and save America from itself. John knows what's up and is not worried so we need not be either. Hey John, did have you noticed how low the water is getting in the lakes? Have you noticed that they haven't frozen this year?! But it's all good. Till it isn't. Have you had some of that tasty Flint water yet? Are you sure?
1
Nowhere in this article does it mention the rational given by the justices for their decision.
Way to keep us informed on the how and why NYT!
Way to keep us informed on the how and why NYT!
6
Looks like there was a brief stay issued; no rationale supplied by the Court.
2
They did not give a rationale.
To Don Shipp - indeed you are right, but it has also left an indelible stain on the American people, and one that we will have a hard time recovering from. Just read the European newspapers and see how they think of us.
4
Early 21st Century efforts to slow climate change vs to protect oil and coal industries are reminiscent of early 20th Century fears of change. The auto industry would cause job losses among blacksmiths and rein makers. Electric lights (offered free by Edison to light his winter home town) were rejected would cause cows to sleep less and give less milk.
Oil, coal, war equipment producers would suffer - unless, of course, they got on the band-wagon and determined to shift efforts to modern needs. Not likely, without enormous political effort to catch up to this century.
Oil, coal, war equipment producers would suffer - unless, of course, they got on the band-wagon and determined to shift efforts to modern needs. Not likely, without enormous political effort to catch up to this century.
5
This is one of the many reasons why this presidential election is so important: the next president will have a huge impact on what the Supreme Court will look like for a long time to come. This is bigger than who will be president for the next four years.
The American people can forget about any kind of Revolution for many decades if the make-up of the Supreme Court doesn't change.
The American people can forget about any kind of Revolution for many decades if the make-up of the Supreme Court doesn't change.
6
To imply that the court is politicized only by the conservative members is a lie. The four liberal members have been nothing more than drones who agree with everything the Democrat party does. At least a couple of the conservatives will occasionally vote with the liberal members.
If a fifth liberal is appointed to the court the court will be even more politicized than it is today.
If a fifth liberal is appointed to the court the court will be even more politicized than it is today.
7
This court has become a branch of Opus Dei.
Cows, sheep, and goats—about 4 billion of them now—generate about twice the methane emissions of coal plants, and are the single largest source of greenhouse gases.
I'm not suggesting SCOTUS acted intelligently or wisely in this instance, quite the contrary. I'm just pointing out that people need to face the facts about the deleterious effects of animal agriculture.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n1/full/nclimate2081.html
I'm not suggesting SCOTUS acted intelligently or wisely in this instance, quite the contrary. I'm just pointing out that people need to face the facts about the deleterious effects of animal agriculture.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n1/full/nclimate2081.html
1
A few months delay in the scope of time of world wide climate and climate change is nothing.
3
But wasn't it just asserted by the Chief Justice that the Court is not swayed by politics, only the law? How can it be that a Republican majority of this astute body has stopped an action of the President on purely political grounds? I don't understand. The President's action to curtail carbon emissions was within the bounds of the law, and though painful, possible. If the states don't like it they should seek redress in the Congress. Isn't that how our democracy is built to work?
5
The Court Blocks Efforts to Slow Climate Change
No - the Court did no such thing. The Editorial Board, in another attempt to sway voters and public perception, is mixing a cause/purpose - no matter how noble - with the legality of the method used to accomplish a feat. The Court issued a Stay - not a decision. That's because the original case is pending a ruling in the DC Court of Appeals already.
But, jam in the words "Republican court", open your thesaurus, and steer readers into thinking the GOP somehow railroaded the legal process. Slant your articles and opinion pieces so your activist writing thinly passes as news.
But be aware, not all your readers fall for it.
No - the Court did no such thing. The Editorial Board, in another attempt to sway voters and public perception, is mixing a cause/purpose - no matter how noble - with the legality of the method used to accomplish a feat. The Court issued a Stay - not a decision. That's because the original case is pending a ruling in the DC Court of Appeals already.
But, jam in the words "Republican court", open your thesaurus, and steer readers into thinking the GOP somehow railroaded the legal process. Slant your articles and opinion pieces so your activist writing thinly passes as news.
But be aware, not all your readers fall for it.
8
Let me be sure I'm following your logic: in order not to be perceived as "party loyalists," the Republican block of appointees should always follow the Democratic block? Or is it that they should just cave to King Obama? I guess Roberts didn't get much credit for failing to stop the Obamacare power grab. He should have known better.
10
Whether it's Flint, or this action bt the court, or the efforts of states seeking to pass laws that prohibit people from discovering unsafe practices by companies, Republicans time and again choose the side of corporations at the expense of the people. Anyone surprised at Bernie's popularity?
17
This is saddening. At least the decision is temporary - but there's reason for concern that that the historic COP21 Paris Agreement will fall apart meanwhile since the hard won agreement was almost jeopardized by the U.S. at the last minute already over the wording, "shall" or "should".
3
The court ruled on the method, not the merit. Typical Obama, the ends justify the means. The Editorial board wants to make this a political football for the upcoming elections.
12
The justices may not think of themselves as Republicans and Democrats, but clearly they are conservative or liberal which powerfully leans them towards one party or the other. Although Roberts himself sometimes surprises, most of the others are incredibly predictable. It is human for them to believe that they, in their knowledge, wisdom, and experience, can remain above the fray. However, it is not within human capacity to consistently do so. They are part of the culture, read the news, belong to political parties and vote in elections. As such, how they read the Constitution and the cases before them will be culturally conditioned. Period.
66
They just sold out the future.
They care more about their benefactors than clean air, the health of the planet or their own children, and certainly yours and mine. They stand to demolish the Paris Climate Accord by undoing what we signed on for in conjunction with other countries to try to save out beleaguered planet from certain catastrophe.
The 5 call themselves pro-life, but they are clearly working for death.
They care more about their benefactors than clean air, the health of the planet or their own children, and certainly yours and mine. They stand to demolish the Paris Climate Accord by undoing what we signed on for in conjunction with other countries to try to save out beleaguered planet from certain catastrophe.
The 5 call themselves pro-life, but they are clearly working for death.
413
"They stand to demolish the Paris Climate Accord by undoing what we signed on for in conjunction with other countries to try to save out beleaguered planet from certain catastrophe."
We the people never signed onto the Paris Climate Accord. For us to do that our Senators would have to have voted for it as a treaty. The president did an end run around the Senate by not making it a treaty but an agreement by executive order. As an executive order it can be canceled by the next president anyway.
Some people are too smart for their own good.
We the people never signed onto the Paris Climate Accord. For us to do that our Senators would have to have voted for it as a treaty. The president did an end run around the Senate by not making it a treaty but an agreement by executive order. As an executive order it can be canceled by the next president anyway.
Some people are too smart for their own good.
8
"We" haven't signed anything since the Paris Accord has not even been approved by the US Senate. In fact, President Obama structured the agreement in such a way that it would not be submitted for the Senate's consideration.
1
All the Supreme Court did was grant a stay of EPA orders while a lawsuit brought by the states challenging them is considered by the federal courts. Prior to that stay, EPA ideologues were confident that while challenges wended their ways through courts targets of dictated and not legislated environmental impositions would be forced to comply with the regulations anyway; so, regardless of rulings by federal courts they would get their way even if the means they used to impose their will was unconstitutional. They can no longer do that.
It’s just as well, as many Americans don’t believe that the regulation at question would succeed at slowing global climate change without equivalent efforts by emerging economies; and many don’t believe that the other countries will do anything like what they need to do. Certainly, we would have dramatically increased the cost of energy only to Americans had a stay not been granted, and that translates into jobs lost.
But the real victory is that one of the more dangerous trends in American politics, this imposition by the president of policy preferences that cannot pass Congressional muster, is scotched and he doesn’t get to unilaterally determine our direction.
In the name of balancing legitimate interests, which is a lot of what federal courts do, the stay was a just and wise decision. EPA will need to win in court, and not just a D.C. court packed with liberal judges but before the U.S. Supreme Court, as well.
It’s just as well, as many Americans don’t believe that the regulation at question would succeed at slowing global climate change without equivalent efforts by emerging economies; and many don’t believe that the other countries will do anything like what they need to do. Certainly, we would have dramatically increased the cost of energy only to Americans had a stay not been granted, and that translates into jobs lost.
But the real victory is that one of the more dangerous trends in American politics, this imposition by the president of policy preferences that cannot pass Congressional muster, is scotched and he doesn’t get to unilaterally determine our direction.
In the name of balancing legitimate interests, which is a lot of what federal courts do, the stay was a just and wise decision. EPA will need to win in court, and not just a D.C. court packed with liberal judges but before the U.S. Supreme Court, as well.
42
Congress has the full powers to tackle this problem if they wish to. It is there job to make laws, so let them make them. If they don't do anything, then it is clear they believe nothing needs to be done. That's democracy. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to run for office.
3
If I was a Koch I would gladly spend a few dollars to have someone argue my views in the Times comments. The cost/benefit is excellent.
I hope they're paying you well. You may wake up screaming one unusually hot night wondering if it was worth it.
I hope they're paying you well. You may wake up screaming one unusually hot night wondering if it was worth it.
15
Where are the facts for your statement "many Americans don't believe that the regulation at question would succeed as slowing global climate change..."? Most Americans think this and other first steps are the way to begin and stop the procrastinating. Where are the facts that show "had a stay not been granted...that translates into jobs lost:? Big oil has been laying off thousands because their cash cow prices are on the decline and they weren't smart enough to plan for that possibility and find ways to keep their people employed, as a good corporate citizen should. Further, the president never acted to "unilaterally determine our direction", he used the Constitutionally provided power of Execute Order because your GOP congress never does its job. Executive Power was used twice as often as George W. Bush. Any decision of the supreme court cannot possibly be called "just and wise" because it is packed with right wing, blindly conservative, corporate loyal appointees who have consistently and blindly voted for corporate interests over facts, logic, common sense, and the people.
You are clearly the cheerleader for the corporate, conservative right wing world but you won't find any converts here. What, exactly, your "verified" notation means is not clear.
You are clearly the cheerleader for the corporate, conservative right wing world but you won't find any converts here. What, exactly, your "verified" notation means is not clear.
17
Ask yourself who plans to benefit from deregulation of the coal industry and the answer will always place the Koch Bros. at the top of the list. Roberts's claim that his decisions and those of the other Justices aren't controlled by the rich Republicans such as the Koch Bros. is insulting. Not all of us Americans are as gullible as Roberts thinks we are.
370
Funny when you consider that George Soros is heavily invested in coal through his holdings in Peabody Energy and Arch Coal.
1
It's not the "Supreme Court" per se that's calling the shots on US climate change policy going forward but rather the five GOP appointed supreme court justices who somehow manage to operate in lockstep on matters that threaten the status quo of corporate power and privilege. This is just another form of GOP sponsored obstructionism which deliberately hampers positive progress. It shows the degree to which the Supreme Court GOP appointees are controlled by the same sinister forces that control the GOP in general.
262
I see, were those same sinister forces in play when they upheld Obama Care twice? Gay Marriage? Failing to uphold DOMA? I guess this conspiracy theory only applies when you don't get you wary on everything.
9
It is unfortunate that we have so politicized appointment to the Supreme Court that we have reduced respect for law. The conclusion that "This is just another form of GOP sponsored obstructionism which deliberately hampers positive progress." reflects and reinforces this tendency. The Court may (and does) deal with political issues, but I believe the Justices are motivated by their honestly held views of the Constitution, not some "sinister forces." Some (perhaps many) of those who describe themselves as "progressive" are results-oriented and would ride roughshod over the Constitution to achieve change. Such impatience, however laudable, imperils the rule of law and the very freedoms we all want to protect. Let the Justices adjudicate and the Congress legislate. All does not have to proceed instantaneously in accordance with Presidential diktat.
1
HealedByGod: Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
How cruel this will sound, but may all the Republican members' children and grandchildren choke on Coal-polluted air for the rest of their lives.....something they are working toward happening to the children and grandchildren of the rest of us. To place their racist fury against the president above everything else is despicable. VOTE DEMOCRAT....YOUR LIVES DEPEND ON IT.
310
Funniest post of the day, thanks Mcacho!
It is never the fault of children and they must never be made to pay for the actions of their parents and grandparents.
A little coal dust may be a good antidote to this ad hominem foaming at the mouth!
2
These justices have stepped across a line that now identifies them for what they are--arrogant and hateful egomaniacs who are willing to destroy their nation and the world simply to please themselves and their GOP comrades. They use their positions for political reasons, not to truthfully interpret the law. In denying this Roberts is nothing but a liar and a cheat. I can only wish a personal worst for all 5 of them.
207
Whatever the merits of the proposed regulations, the temporary suspension reflects the outrageous violations of Constitutional separation of powers that have become the modus vivendi of the Obama administration. Frustration at impass created in part by the President himself is no excuse for such actions. Further, for all its sympathies with the politically correct subsets of indigent and working class Americans, the Administration has callously disregarded the socioeconomic catastrophes that crushing the coal industry will bring down on poor and working class residents of the states that are disproportionately affected, such as West Virginia and Kentucky. Finally, the proposed changes are predicated on the notion that growth of alternative energy sources of electricity can be fast enough to maintain the U.S. economy in the next several decades. That is manifestly incorrect, almost hallucinatory, and could lead to an economic catastrophe for the nation as a whole.
21
1. You must have missed the fact that the Supreme Court had previously upheld the Clean Air Act and the ability of the Executive Branch to enforce it. Given the long transition times and alternative paths available to states this is hardly a power grab by President Obama.
2. As employment in coal mining declines, employment in solar accelerates. There are now twice as many people working in solar as in coal and jobs in the solar industry have grown at a 20%+ rate in recent years, according to Fortune http://for.tn/1murCw9
The ''hallucination'' is the belief that coal can or should play an important role in our energy future. The right thing to do is to transition from coal, providing states, utilities and especially workers with the time they need to make the change, just as the Obama administration has done.
2. As employment in coal mining declines, employment in solar accelerates. There are now twice as many people working in solar as in coal and jobs in the solar industry have grown at a 20%+ rate in recent years, according to Fortune http://for.tn/1murCw9
The ''hallucination'' is the belief that coal can or should play an important role in our energy future. The right thing to do is to transition from coal, providing states, utilities and especially workers with the time they need to make the change, just as the Obama administration has done.
176
1. Perhaps you missed the fact that the Supreme Court has previously upheld the authority of the EPA to regulate coal emissions, so no, this policy is not ''an outrageous violation'' of the separation of powers. The President and Administrator of EPA are just doing their jobs.
2. There are twice as many people working in solar today as there are in coal mining--while coal declines (as it is declining globally), employments in the solar industry in the US has expanded at a 20%+ rate in recent years, according to Fortune. http://for.tn/1murCw9
3. Germany derives 78% of its energy from renewable resources and Brazil 85%. The transitions proposed by the EPA regulations allow plenty of time for the US to achieve the same or better.
2. There are twice as many people working in solar today as there are in coal mining--while coal declines (as it is declining globally), employments in the solar industry in the US has expanded at a 20%+ rate in recent years, according to Fortune. http://for.tn/1murCw9
3. Germany derives 78% of its energy from renewable resources and Brazil 85%. The transitions proposed by the EPA regulations allow plenty of time for the US to achieve the same or better.
48
re "the Administration has callously disregarded the socioeconomic catastrophes that crushing the coal industry will bring down on poor and working class ..."
Renewable energy has also become a big employer, much bigger these days than the coal industry ... just saying.
Renewable energy has also become a big employer, much bigger these days than the coal industry ... just saying.
25
Another reason to vote Democratic. A GOP president will nominate GOP judges who will do similar inane actions.
197
Bush v. Gore, the next chapter.
113
It should have been a 4-4 tie and no change to the status quo.
Clarence Thomas should have recused himself since his wife is on the payroll of Americans For Prosperity, a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Propaganda, Pollution & Sedition Inc., the #1 toxic waste emitter in the always exceptional US of A.
Uncle Thomas was so proud of the wife's employment by Koch, that he, quite innocently, did not report her source of income on his disclosure forms, for a mere seven years.
Clarence Thomas should have recused himself since his wife is on the payroll of Americans For Prosperity, a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Propaganda, Pollution & Sedition Inc., the #1 toxic waste emitter in the always exceptional US of A.
Uncle Thomas was so proud of the wife's employment by Koch, that he, quite innocently, did not report her source of income on his disclosure forms, for a mere seven years.
553
If so Kagan should have been recused from the Afordable Care Act decision because she worked on that act for Obama before she was appointed to the court. Enough with the recusal nonsense.
And what's with the "Uncle Thomas"? Maybe you and the "tolerant" liberals think that's cute. In actuality it is pretty darn racist.
And what's with the "Uncle Thomas"? Maybe you and the "tolerant" liberals think that's cute. In actuality it is pretty darn racist.
4
Conflicted interest is all we ever get from Republican jurists.
2
How is it possible that five old and middle-aged guys play such a large role in determining the fate of hundreds of millions of people, many other species, How is it possible that five old and middle-aged guys play such a large role in determining the fate of hundreds of millions of people, many other species, oceans, coastal areas, desertification, polar caps with basically a few strokes of their pens and for the financial gain of a few like-minded ones. I would think that important international treaties like the very important one achieved in Paris over rule national ones. Perhaps it is time for the International Court to admonish the US and through this the very partisan US Supreme Court, even though the US did not sign on (I hope that a next administration will as such would most certainly limit the damaging effect of US Supreme Court decisions of global dimensions and damaging effect like the current one. Frankly, when I read about this decision my stomach turned.
139
Old people have experience. We were told don't trust anyone over thirty. By people over thirty. Old people recognize sales men when we see one.
Imagine what would happen if President Cruz, Rubio, or Trump appointed the next two Justices. It could--literally--set the planet on a course to inevitable destruction.
402
The planet has survived much worse than this, it will be fine.
4
The planet will survive. Our species will fade out sooner through our actions or later through the course of inevitable cosmic interplay. In the grand scheme, we are here for a moment , but we should be thinking about making that moment good for all and not for a powerful profit-addicted few.
4
the hyperbolic rhetoric here is a wonderful source of early morning entertainment. The SCOTUS did nothing other than issue a stay on the orders while the lower court hears the case. This is something that, as a matter of course, the lower court should probably have done themselves. The sky is not falling and the SCOTUS is not a dupe for Vladimir Putin, I promise. Now back to my coffee and oatmeal.
2
The founding fathers were thoughtful enough to seek a balance of power by dividing it among three branches of government. I'm fairly certain the thought was if one branch gets too far out of line the other two have the mechanisms to gently nudge them back in line. I do not believe they envisioned that the judicial branch would continuously arrive at decisions bereft of sound legal analysis. Nor do I believe they envisioned a congress in which one member threw a snow ball on the house floor and another quipped that the ice melting in his drink failed to raise the water level in his glass as arguments against climate change.
Justice Scalia has frequently pointed out the "ha ha" you can't fire me. True. We can however change congress by voting. If you fail to do so then we get what we deserve.
Justice Scalia has frequently pointed out the "ha ha" you can't fire me. True. We can however change congress by voting. If you fail to do so then we get what we deserve.
455
Nor would they think that the president would do things that he has admitted are beyond his constitutional powers.
6
Although firing is out, impeachment is not. At the very least, Judge Thomas, in failing to recuse himself and in failing to disclose his financial ties to one of the major beneficiaries of this obstructionist putsch, has crossed the line and warrants a trial of his own, on the floor of the Senate.
5
Again, vulcanalex, please explain exactly what Obama "has admitted are beyond his constitutional powers." You are simply making things us which to paraphrase you, is what conservatives do all the time.
3
I am sure the Obamaites are as capable of explaining that we have a federal system with limited-sovereignty states as was President Bush when Texas refused his request to not execute an illegal who had committed murder.
3
What on earth could you be talking about?
14
But it was just fine for president Bush to hold states fiscally accountable if they they did not adopt his ill-conceived no child left behind policies, which dragged down every state that had a good teaching reputation and educational scores to match. That was legal and within his power. This court has shown itself to be loyal lapdogs of the Republican party.
4
“We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans.” Mr. Chief Justice, you can't possibly be serious.
299
The Affordable Care Act, Obama's immigration initiative. and now his global warming initiative have all been found, in part or in whole, to violate the limits on presidential power. Republican intransigence caused Obama to take actions that the Court apparently considers unlawful at the expense of Congress or the states. Whether Obama indeed stepped over the line is a subtle legal issue. Because Republicans are inclined to call for greater limits on executive power, it is not surprising that the Court has decided against Obama. But by doing so, they are establishing rules that will equally limit Republican presidents. That is a legitimate interpretation of existing law and over time will not favor either party.
17
" That is a legitimate interpretation of existing law and over time will not favor either party."
As it should be. Where is it written that running this country is some sort of competition between two political parties? Madison tried to prevent this competition of "factions" and has failed.
As it should be. Where is it written that running this country is some sort of competition between two political parties? Madison tried to prevent this competition of "factions" and has failed.
4
Exactly the way it's supposed to be. That's why our Government is structured the way it is. We don't have Kings on this side of the pond. By the people for the people-remember.
All the activists posting here says it all. If you let 1 person have the power to legislate, our whole Government would become unworkable as it alienated huge percentages of the population.
All the activists posting here says it all. If you let 1 person have the power to legislate, our whole Government would become unworkable as it alienated huge percentages of the population.
3
This court, or its majority, has no respect for precedent. There's one law for Obama and another for Republicans.
4
"Balls and Strikes" Roberts, hack, charlatan and liar.
179
This ruling, along with the infamous Citizens United, and Shelby decisions have left an indelible stain on the Roberts Court. It reveals conclusively that the five Conservative Justices are closer to being political hacks than eminent jurists. Citizens United, in particular, will live in the SCOTUS hall of infamy, along with egregious decisions like Dred Scott and Plessy v.Ferguson. The evisceration of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby is reminiscent of those cases, if not in specificity, in the reduction of African American political agency.
302
In your view, but it really is just properly doing their job, rather than making stuff up like the progressives do all the time.
7
Excellent comment that lends perspective to the tenor of this Court.
4
I believe we should add Bush v. Gore to that list.
3
The Roberts Court has now achieved a planetary level of arrogance, overturning not just a US environmental rule clearly within the authority of the EPA under the Clean Air Act, but essentially vetoing an agreement on a global level by 195 nations.
Concerted effective climate change action by the 50 states of the US is virtually impossible without the leadership of the EPA. And the US in total emits between 2 to 3 times more carbon per capita than Europe, China, India, Brazil and other major populations.
The "economic damage" argument is phony. There is a small impact on utility costs in the 3% range initially which actually becomes a savings within a few more years.
This will ultimately rank among the greatest horrors of history and its name will be Roberts.
Concerted effective climate change action by the 50 states of the US is virtually impossible without the leadership of the EPA. And the US in total emits between 2 to 3 times more carbon per capita than Europe, China, India, Brazil and other major populations.
The "economic damage" argument is phony. There is a small impact on utility costs in the 3% range initially which actually becomes a savings within a few more years.
This will ultimately rank among the greatest horrors of history and its name will be Roberts.
662
It isn't overturned; the court halted it from taking effect until the case is reviewed. Given how expensive implementing these rules would be as well as their tenuous Constitutionality, it makes perfect sense to see if apbsma's pledge in Paris is legal before wasting money.
4
"The "economic damage" argument is phony. There is a small impact on utility costs in the 3% range initially which actually becomes a savings within a few more years. "
You fail to recognize the economic damage done to the coal mining states. Tens of thousands of miners are unemployed with no hopes of getting a job. Because they are no longer eligible for unemployment many of them have been placed on disability by merciful judges after their appeals. West Virginia has more people on Disability than any other state.
The power companies will find other ways to generate revenues. The miners have been thrown to the wolves by their own government.
You fail to recognize the economic damage done to the coal mining states. Tens of thousands of miners are unemployed with no hopes of getting a job. Because they are no longer eligible for unemployment many of them have been placed on disability by merciful judges after their appeals. West Virginia has more people on Disability than any other state.
The power companies will find other ways to generate revenues. The miners have been thrown to the wolves by their own government.
2
The Government of China thanks this reader for his comment.
1
Uruguay started just a decade ago. It now generates 95% of its electricity from renewables. That amounts to 55% of its entire energy usage.
It can expand the percentage of the total if for example it used electric vehicles charged by those renewables.
This is important for more than proof it can be done.
It was cheaper too. They saved money doing it.
It is profitable. It is not a government stimulus that loses money, it includes much profit-making foreign investment.
The Court and those urging it to stop this progress are railing against saving money and making money. They want to charge us more, and to keep that for themselves.
It is pure greed. We can see that because of how it works in other countries. Uruguay isn't the only one, just the one that most recently announced its figures.
It can expand the percentage of the total if for example it used electric vehicles charged by those renewables.
This is important for more than proof it can be done.
It was cheaper too. They saved money doing it.
It is profitable. It is not a government stimulus that loses money, it includes much profit-making foreign investment.
The Court and those urging it to stop this progress are railing against saving money and making money. They want to charge us more, and to keep that for themselves.
It is pure greed. We can see that because of how it works in other countries. Uruguay isn't the only one, just the one that most recently announced its figures.
226
Perhaps then you can cite a country that is more like the US than Uruguay?
7
Kudos to Uruguay. However they are not a very good example to compare with the US.
Firstly, Uruguay is a tiny country with a population of just 3.4 million people, slightly smaller than Brooklyn and Manhattan combined.
Secondly, they are able to generate huge amounts of electricity using hydropower which provides around 60% of installed production capacity in Uruguay, almost all of it produced by four hydroelectric facilities, three on the Rio Negro and one, the Salto Grande dam shared with Argentina, on the Uruguay River.
Unfortunately hydropower is not available in most of the USA and our demand for electricity is exponentially higher.
Firstly, Uruguay is a tiny country with a population of just 3.4 million people, slightly smaller than Brooklyn and Manhattan combined.
Secondly, they are able to generate huge amounts of electricity using hydropower which provides around 60% of installed production capacity in Uruguay, almost all of it produced by four hydroelectric facilities, three on the Rio Negro and one, the Salto Grande dam shared with Argentina, on the Uruguay River.
Unfortunately hydropower is not available in most of the USA and our demand for electricity is exponentially higher.
13
Germany gets 78% of its energy from renewable resources and Brazil gets 85% of its energy from renewable resources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Brazil
http://energytransition.de/2015/07/renewables-covered-78percent-of-germa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Brazil
http://energytransition.de/2015/07/renewables-covered-78percent-of-germa...
23