The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case that would decide whether carbon dioxide emissions from our cars are a pollutant that, according to a 1970 law, must be regulated for the sake of public health.
:
A dozen states as well as environmental groupsand large cities are trying to convince the court that theEnvironmental Protection Agency must regulate, as a matter of publichealth, the amount of carbon dioxide that comes from vehicles.
Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels areburned. It is the principal "greenhouse" gas that many scientistsbelieve is flowing into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate,leading to a warming of the earth and widespread ecological changes.
The states and more than a dozen environmental groups insist the 1970law makes clear that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that is subject toregulation because its poses a threat to public health.
We already know automatically that justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas will side with the government on this. Ultimately, it will come down to which side Justice Kennedy is on. That's interesting: one person determining the future of environmental law for the next twenty years.
Under the current political radar, which has focused largely on the Iraq war and the midterm elections, the Supreme Court is about to address the most important environmental case that has ever come before our Judiciary Branch. It has to do with whether that must be regulated by the EPA. The Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in December.
breaks down what is at stake:
What's at stake is whether or not the federal government has theauthority to deal with climate change. Given that climate change is themost pressing environmental issue to face the planet, whether or notthe U.S. government can do anything about it is a damn importantquestion. The court will decide two questions. Does the Clean Air Actgive the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulategreenhouse gases? If it gives EPA that authority, can EPA avoidexercising that authority simply because it doesn't want to? Ouranswers to those two questions are yes and no respectively.
Also, at stake is whether the auto industry will be forced by the U.S. government to start backing new green technology. Gee, it makes you wish that Al Gore had been President -- then instead of Roberts and Alito, he would have nominated two pro-environment Supreme Court justices.
Today, the news that the White House is being subpoenaed in a suit brought by hundreds of plaintiffs hit the blogosphere like a tidal wave (or, due to the sensitivity of the anniversary of hurricane Katrina, maybe the phrase "like a bullet" is more appropriate!).
The blog , which has obtained a targeting the Administration, is reporting that subpoenas are on their way to the White House in an effort to find out the details of President Bush's warrantless domestic wiretap program. The lawsuit also seeks to determine whether phone companies violated the by handing over customer information to the government.
And as the adds, more importantly, this will hopefully shed some light on when Bush's secret warrantless domestic wiretap program began. In other words, did the monitoring start even before September 11, 2001?:
The lawyers said they suspected the administration had begunobtaining the records even before the Sept. 11 attacks, which, if true,would raise questions about whether the program was initiated to combatterrorism.
"We want to find out when they started going after these records. Wewant to find out who authorized it. Was it Dick Cheney? Was it someoneelse? And, frankly, we want to find out if they were using itimproperly," Mayer said.
Keep in mind that the Patriot Act was actually all . I wouldn't be surprised if this warrantless domestic wiretap program had the same pattern of origination. Remember, ever since he was sworn in as Vice President, one of Dick Cheney's goals has been to that he felt had declined after the Watergate scandal.
One of the most basic characteristics of a free press that ensures that the public will be well-informed about its representative government is the protection of confidential sources. Some government officials talk to the press in confidence for a reason. And usually that reason stems from someone intending to do the right thing when a law has been violated by a superior. Especially with the this year that whistleblowers who expose government mismanagement can be punished by their bosses, it is more important than almost any other time in our history for confidential sources to be protected.
Sadly though, an appeals court that has historically protected confidential sources ruled today that the FBI can of two New York Times reporters:
A federal prosecutor may inspect the telephone records of two New YorkTimes reporters in an effort to identify their confidential sources, afederal appeals court in New York ruled yesterday.
The 2-to-1 decision, from a court historically sympathetic to claimsthat journalists should be entitled to protect their sources, reverseda lower court and dealt a further setback to news organizations, whichhave lately been on a losing streak in the federal courts.
Thedissenting judge said that the government had failed to demonstrate ittruly needed the records and that efforts to obtain reporters’ phonerecords could alter the way news gathering was conducted.
Thecase arose from a Chicago grand jury’s investigation into who told thetwo reporters, Judith Miller and Philip Shenon, about actions thegovernment was planning to take against two Islamic charities, HolyLand Foundation in Texas and Global Relief Foundation in Illinois.Though the government contended that calls from the reporters tippedoff the charities to impending raids and asset seizures, theinvestigation appears to be focused on identifying the reporters’sources. No testimony has been sought from the reporters, and there hasbeen no indication that their actions are a subject of theinvestigation.
Who is to prevent the FBI from using these phone records to look at other contacts unrelated to the case?
I was not alive when Nixon was president. But from what I have learned as a history and political science student, there is something very Nixonian about all this. It is true that this ruling was the result of the courts and not the Executive Branch. But you can still make the Nixon connection as it purtains to the conservative expansion of government -- specifically designed to confront anyone that opposes the powerful few. With the Justice Department's constant intimidation of the Judicial Branch ever since 9/11, no wonder the press is in the middle of a considerably long losing streak in the courts.
Is this one really for real? That is the question that the progressive community has to be asking Pennsylvania Republican Senator Arlen Specter about now. Or will he back down to White House pressure as usual? Arlen Specter is planning to introduce a bill that would for violating the constitution:
"We will submit legislation to the United States Senate whichwill...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of thosesigning statements with the view to having the president's actsdeclared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter,R-Pa., said on the Senate floor.
Basically, ever since September 11th, President Bush has Executive Orders allowing him revise or disregard any law made by Congress that has to do with national security. In other words, White House lawyers believe that the Executive Branch has complete control over all issues having to do with national security, and therefore can act in a unitary matter by not obeying certain bills or resolutions passed by Congress. So, in terms of national defense, there is only one branch of government, not three, according to the White House.
But others would say that there are three branches for a reason -- whether for matters involving the economy or national security. There always needs to be a check on each branch.
Please to support Arlen Specter's legislation. ------------------------------------------------------------- Other blogs writing about this issue: , , , , , , .
The President talks all the time about why this country cannot have . Well if this case is not judicial activism, then I do not know what is.
The Senate is currently , President Bush's radically conservative nominee to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Why is he radical? Here is one example. Back in 2003 while he was the Pentagon's top lawyer, conservationists sued the Pentagon because the military's bombing exercises on an island in the Pacific violated a U.S. environmental law. Haynes argued that the Pentagon's bombing runs were actually good for the birds on that island -- I kid you not! The blog :
In the bird bombing case, conservationists suedto protect an important nesting island for migratory birds in thePacific. They established that the U.S. military's bombing of theisland during live-fire training exercises violated the Migratory BirdTreaty Act.[1]
Haynes' team argued in a legal brief thatconservationists actually benefit from the military's killing of birdsbecause it helps make some species more rare -- and "bird watchers getmore enjoyment spotting a rare bird than they do spotting a commonone." They argued the bombing was good for the birds too, as it keptthe island free of other "human intrusion."[2]
So if bombing bird colonies is good because it makes birds more rare, then under that reasoning what does that say about why we invaded Iraq? Bad arguments lead people to arrive at bad conclusions. And Bush wants this guy to be an appeals judge?
Aside from his anti-environmental stances as the Pentagon's top lawyer, . Enough is enough. Please , and tell them to block this confirmation.
to the Senate asking them to block the confirmation of William Haynes, Bush's nominee to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Haynes was the Pentagon's top lawyer that helped the Administration attempt to justify its harsh interrogation tactics against detainees. The Administration knew that Haynes would be a controversial nominee, which was why earlier this week the Pentagon lawyer announced a , saying that the Geneva Conventions actually do apply for prisoners -- a calculated political tactic by the Bush Administration to at the last minute.
But regardless of the Administration's timed political decision this week, that cannot hide the fact that William Haynes is a fringe conservative. So what kinds of interrogation techniques did he advocate? Here are some, :
He recommended that detainees in Guantanamo could be subjected toabusive interrogation techniques, including stripping them naked,depriving them of light, forcing them into stress positions, forciblyshaving them, and using dogs to intimidate them. He also advised thatusing wet towels and dripping water to make the detainees believe theyare suffocating (waterboarding) and threatening them and their familieswith death might be “legally available†options.
Aside from the opinion that using these techniques is not going to help us spread democracy democracy around the world, many think that Haynes should not be allowed to get away with changing his stance at the last minute out of political convenience. In a nutshell, the Administration is taking a fringe conservative and dressing him up as a moderate -- just as they did with Samuel Alito.
Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has not ruled out a filibuster. It is safe to say that if all progressives knew the information above, they would definitely ask Reid to stand firm, regardless of what rhetoric the White House throws at him, and block this radically conservative nominee.
Today, the Supreme Court applied a major check on the rising Executive Branch power. The court, which ironically is the most conservative it has been in 20 years, ruled that the Bush Administration at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba because it gives them few judicial protections:
In a 5-3 decision, the court said the trials were not authorized by anyact of Congress and that their structure and procedures violate theUniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the four Geneva Conventionssigned in 1949.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion in the case, called Hamdan v. Rumsfeld . Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. recused himself.
Bush, who was meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister, on it:
Bush said he would consult with Congress to seek "a way forward"after the ruling, which reversed the appeals court ruling on statutorygrounds, avoiding major constitutional issues.
...Bush added, "I want tofind a way forward. In other words, I have told the people that I wouldlike for there to be a way to return people from Guantanamo to theirhome countries. But some people need to be tried in our courts, and theHamdan decision was the way forward for that part of my statement."
Bush is going to consult Congress for a way forward? Wow! That's pretty rare for this President. Overall, this ruling did do a few things. First, it affirmed the position that the Administration needs to follow the Geneva Conventions -- even though that the Geneva Conventons do not apply during this war (even though they were obviously written specifically for wars like this!).
Secondly, it affirms the longstanding American belief that we are a nation of laws, not just merely a nation of men.
I thought that the funniest part about the ruling was the fact that it overturned a ruling that , which sided with the government on this case. Therefore, once Roberts reached the Supreme Court, he had to be recused from hearing this case a second time. Although, even if he had voted with the government a second time, his side still would have lost by one vote. ------------------------------------------------------------ Other blogs writing about this issue: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
A huge Supreme Court ruling came down today -- disappointing for the most part. By a vote of 5 to 4, they upheld a lower court ruling that Tom DeLay's 2003 redistricting plan was legal. Essentially, it opens the door for both party's to consistently change district lines to give them a leg up heading into each November election.
:
The court rebuffed Democratic arguments that the remap adopted in2003 was an unconstitutional mid-decade partisan gerrymander. In sodoing, it left open the possibility that other state legislatures mightchoose to redistrict more than once a decade if party control shifts.
In 2002, under a court-drawn map, Democrats won 17 of Texas’ 32 U.S.House seats. But Republicans captured control of the state legislaturethat year, and at the instigation of former U.S. House Majority LeaderTom DeLay, R-Texas, they pushed through a new redistricting plan in2003.
Underthe new map, Republicans won 21 of the 32 House seats in the 2004election, which enabled the GOP to increase its overall House majority.
However (and this is rather interesting), conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy hinted that Tom to divide the Hispanic vote, preventing them from electing a Hispanic Congressman in San Antonio:
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority, saidHispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosingin south and west Texas under the state's plan.
The plan's "troubling blend of politics and race — and the resultingvote dilution of a group that was beginning to achieve (the federallaw's) goal of overcoming prior electoral discrimination — cannot besustained," Kennedy wrote.
The Dallas Morning News predicts that this ruling could , who narrowly won because of Tom DeLay's gerrymandering of the San Antonio district.
Other than that, though, this is a major victory for Republican majorities in the southern U.S., who now can legally redraw the district maps as they please. As the before the decision was handed down, this ruling would hold nationwide implications.
Sadly, when you draw district lines based on political advantage and not on simple geography, you are pretty much throwing a punch to the gut of representative democracy.
Considering all the bad news that we usually get on a daily basis, and considering the uphill battle we have when it comes to government accountability and transparency, it is nice to hear about a story like this. The marked a huge victory for workers that fall victim to abuse on the job:
The Supreme Court on Thursday enhancedworkers' ability to win money damages when employers retaliate againstthem for filing discrimination complaints.
In a Tennessee case, the justices unanimouslysided with former forklift operator Sheila White, whose employer,Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, had transferred her to a dirtierjob on the tracks after she accused a supervisor of sexual harassment.
Writing for the court, Justice Stephen Breyersaid employers are liable for retaliatory actions that a "reasonable"worker would find "materially adverse" and that could deter the workerfrom filing a claim.
...Breyer stressed that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act "dependsfor its enforcement upon the cooperation of employees who are willingto file complaints." He wrote for all of the justices except SamuelAlito, who agreed with the court's decision favoring White but said itsstandard would not be practical on the job.
has more on the case.
This, unfortunately, is the only bright spot for the Supreme Court since the confirmations of Samuel Alito and John Roberts. One month ago, in the , the court ruled 5 to 4 that government employees who expose misconduct at work do not have First Amendment protections.
Recent Comments