And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

In Global Warming Case, Supreme Court Reaches Correct Result But Leaves Room for Mischievous Litigation | Cato @ Liberty

Posted on: June 20, 2011

In Global Warming Case, Supreme Court Reaches Correct Result But Leaves Room for Mischievous Litigation | Cato @ Liberty.

I have been generally upset with this Supreme court since the Eminent Domain case,  and really upset after Obama’s appointees.  However somehow for some reason they came thru today with two sane actions: they threw out the women’s class action suit against WalMart stating gender discrimination in wages and promotions.  This of course let companies exhale as they are not afraid of being hit with one of these huge case action suits that generally are merely lawyers high jacking companies  for big bucks.  Rather than fight the companies generally pay off to just make it all go away so that their stock and other business decisions won’t be harmed.  The only winners are the lawyers believe me.  WalMart stayed the course and took on the big law firms.  Now individual claimants can sue if they feel they have been discriminated against and this is as it should be.  There are laws  and many agencies to hold companies accountable for discrimination.

Next the the Judges   put a big hit on the global warming crowd.  The more important one for you to understand is the environmental issue so I have  transferred the Cato Institute explanation over because it seemed to me to explain the issue best.

You may also want to check out the referenced articles at the end. Since the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on any laws that guide Americans lives we should all keep a close watch on the rulings and the ramifications of these rulings.  While you are at it make a sincerely prayer that Obama doesn’t have an opportunity to name another judge!  BB

In Global Warming Case, Supreme Court Reaches Correct Result But Leaves Room for Mischievous Litigation

Posted by Ilya Shapiro

In the important global warming case decided today, American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court unanimously reached the correct result but one that still leaves room for plenty of mischievous litigation.  While it’s clearly true that, as the Court said, the Clean Air Act and the EPA exist to deal with the claims the plaintiffs made here—that the defendants’ carbon dioxide emissions are pollutants that cause global warming—the Court left open the possibility of claims on state common-law grounds such as nuisance.  And it unfortunately said nothing about whether any such disputes, whether challenging EPA action or suing under state law, are properly “cases and controversies” ripe for judicial resolution.

The judiciary was not meant to be the sole method for resolving grievances with the government, even if everything looks like a nail to lawyers who only have a hammer.  This case is the perfect example of a “political question” best left to the political branches: The science and politics of global warming is so complex and nuanced that there simply isn’t a judicial role to be had.

As Cato’s amicus brief argued, the chain of causation between the defendants’ carbon emissions and the alleged harm caused by global warming is so attenuated that it resembles the famed “butterfly effect.” Just as butterflies should not be sued for causing tsunamis, a handful of utility companies in the Northeastern United States should not be sued for the complex (and disputed) harms of global warming. Even if plaintiffs (here or in a future case) can demonstrate causation, it is unconstitutional for courts to make nuanced policy decisions that should be left to the legislature.  Just as it’s improper for a legislature to pass a statute punishing a particular person (bill of attainder), it’s beyond courts’ constitutional authority to determine wide-ranging policies in which numerous considerations must be weighed in anything but an adversarial litigation process.

If a court were to adjudicate claims like those at issue in American Electric Power and issue an order dictating emissions standards, two things will happen: 1) the elected branches will be encouraged to abdicate to the courts their responsibilities for addressing complex and controversial policy issues, and 2) an already difficult situation would become nearly intractable as regulatory agencies and legislative actors butt heads with court orders issued across the country in quickly multiplying global warming cases. These inevitable outcomes are precisely why the standing and political question doctrines exist.

Dissatisfaction with the decisions and pace of government does not give someone the right to sue over anything. Or, as Chief Justice Marshall once said, “If the judicial power extended to every question under the laws of the United States … [t]he division of power [among the branches of government] could exist no longer, and the other departments would be swallowed up by the judiciary.”

4 Responses to "In Global Warming Case, Supreme Court Reaches Correct Result But Leaves Room for Mischievous Litigation | Cato @ Liberty"

[…] In Global Warming Case, Supreme Court Reaches Correct Result But Leaves Room for Mischievous Litigation | Cato @ Liberty (via And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow) Posted on June 20, 2011 by wdednh In Global Warming Case, Supreme Court Reaches Correct Result But Leaves Room for Mischievous Litigation | Cato @ Liberty.   I have been generally upset with this Supreme court since the Eminent Domain case,  and really upset after Obama's appointees.  However somehow for some reason they came thru today with two sane actions: they through out the women's class action suit against WalMart stating gender discrimination in wages and promotions. … Read More […]

What does “correct mean?” Is it the correct legal result, scientific result, financial result, or the result supported and advanced by a certain faction in the debate.

The Supreme Court does not generally makes its decision based on what is “correct” or “incorrect.” It has a very limited, focus in reviewing cases, and does everything imaginable to avoid ruling in ways, or on issues, it does not have to.

Reggie, in my mind the words “correct” means following the Constitution as I read it and apparently the way the writer of this Cato Article sees it too as he first used the word. My blog, my judgement so In my opinion the Supreme Court was WRONG WRONG WRONG in the Eminent Domain ruling. And I fear very much that the Obama appointees will rule according to their liberal biases and beliefs rather than the Constitution. This I base on their rulings and decisions before coming to the Court. It was a shoo in for anyone Obama wanted to put on the Court because there was no one to stop the Democrats in the Senate.

This Court took on the issue of Eminent Domain and allowed a city to take property from the owners to give it to business. ( And, Now that the homes are gone the project failed and it is just a big op-en dump where peoples homes were.) The Court had no business in this case at all. It was and “incorrect” and very broad ruling that will affect Americans property owners from here on out. Many states jumped in to write laws to circumvent this ruling but then the governments took another look and liked the power it gave them so they watered down the laws in many cases.

As for the two cases under discussion the Court rightly or “correctly” saw that they had no business in the Global warming issue as it is really a state or local issue to be resolved. Or, a legislative issue if wide spread. the class action suit was a scam that would affect businesses large and small. Discrimination is a personal issue and can only be judged as such. All one million women were not discriminated against and to have taken this case and ruled on it would have shown the bias and incompetence of the current court. IMO the only sane Judge is Thomas. BB

Reggie, Great to hear from you and that you still visit this Old Broad’s mouthy blog. 🙂 BB

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

See topic cloud at bottom of page for specific topics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 97 other followers

BB’s file cabinet

%d bloggers like this: