Supreme Court vs. The Decider - again

Yesterday, The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that The Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer said that by providing nothing more than a “laundry list of reasons not to regulate,” the environmental agency had defied the Clean Air Act’s “clear statutory command.”

This is a strong rebuke on the Bush Administration's contention that it has a "do nothing" approach to Global Warming. The EPA must control tailpipe emissions under the Clean Air and Water Act, or face legal action if they refuse.

The four Bush Justices, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., focused on whether the broad coalition of states, cities and environmental groups that brought the lawsuit against the environmental agency four years ago should have been accepted as plaintiffs in the first place. This refers to the requirement to meet a 3-part definition that lets a plaintiff stand: that it had suffered a “concrete and particularized injury,” that the injury was “fairly traceable to the defendant” and that a favorable decision would be likely to “redress that injury.” Justice Stevens said that Massachusetts certainly met the test, because Global Warming has been raising the sea levels along the coast, putting the state at risk of "catastrophic harm."

So what does this mean? Well, the politicized Supreme Court divided along predictable lines, however, the decision fell on the side of saving our home. Our Planet. The decision, along with a second Environmental Case that was heard yesterday (and decided favorably for the Environment) sends a strong message to Congress to act on protecting the Environment. It sends a strong message to the Bush Administration. And it sends a strong message to US, to us, that the Decider is not the Decider after all. We can say "enough."