WASHINGTON, April 2, 2007
High Court Rebukes Bush On Auto Emissions
In A 5-4 Decision, Supreme Court Decides EPA Can Regulate Greenhouse Gases From Cars
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Court Ruling Hits Automakers
Analysts say that the Supreme Court's ruling that the EPA can regulate emissions from cars will have a profound effect on the auto industry. Anthony Mason has more details.
-
Video
Landmark Ruling On Emissions
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Wyatt Andrews has more on the significance of this ruling.
-
Video
Car Emissions To Be Reviewed
The Supreme Court ordered the federal government to take a closer look at how it regulates carbon dioxide emissions from cars. Susan Roberts reports.
-
Photo
Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned. One way to reduce those emissions is to have more fuel-efficient cars. (AP/CBS)
-
Photo Essay
A Warming Effect
A behind-the-scenes look at the 60 Minutes team's trip to Patagonia, Chile and Antarctica.
-
Interactive
Global Warming
The greenhouse effect, a look at the Kyoto Protocol and a history of the Earth's climate.
-
Blog
Court Watch
CBSNews.com Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen's new blog on the big issues and analyzes important cases of the day.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.
Ever since the Bush Administration came to power, the EPA has refused all regulation of global warming emissions — emissions from cars and power plants — saying it lacked the authority, reports CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews.
But Monday's decision was a hard slap to the administration.
Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion.
"The justices told the White House it hasn't been correctly interpreting the Clean Air Act when it comes to trying to stop global warming, that it has been applying the law too restrictively, not aggressively enough, and that people affected by it have a right to go to court to challenge the way the Bush administration is regulating greenhouse gases," said CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "So it's a major blow to the White House."
The court's four conservative justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — dissented.
Many scientists believe greenhouse gases, flowing into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, are leading to a warming of the Earth, rising sea levels and other marked ecological changes.
The Supreme Court ruling has turned the auto industry upside down, reports CBS News correspondent Anthony Mason.
From the outset, U.S. automakers have resisted tougher emissions standards, and the EPA has been on their side. Now, suddenly, the picture has changed.
"It's gonna be more difficult to sell large pickups, sport utilities, the big vehicles on which they make most of their money," said John Casesa, a veteran industry analyst.
The politics of global warming have changed dramatically since the court agreed last year to hear its first global warming case.
"In many ways, the debate has moved beyond this," said Chris Miller, director of the global warming campaign for Greenpeace, one of the environmental groups that sued the EPA. "All the front-runners in the 2008 presidential campaign, both Democrats and Republicans, even the business community, are much further along on this than the Bush administration is."
Democrats took control of Congress last November. The world's leading climate scientists reported in February that global warming is "very likely" caused by man and is so severe that it will "continue for centuries." Former Vice President Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" — making the case for prompt action on climate change — won an Oscar. Business leaders are saying they are increasingly open to congressional action to reduce greenhouse gases emissions, of which carbon dioxide is the largest.
Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned. One way to reduce those emissions is to have more fuel-efficient cars.
The court had three questions before it.
The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a "laundry list" of reasons that include foreign policy considerations.
"As a result of this ruling now the EPA will have to more fully justify its reasons not to regulate greenhouses gases — something the White House has so far been unwilling to do," Cohen said. "And don't forget that the new Democratically-controlled Congress can put even more pressure on the administration by changing the Clean Air Act to make it more explicit that greenhouses gases ought to be regulated."
The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.
"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Stevens said. He was joined by his liberal colleagues, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, and the court's swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The lawsuit was filed by 12 states and 13 environmental groups that had grown frustrated by the Bush administration's inaction on global warming.
In his dissent, Roberts focused on the issue of standing, whether a party has the right to file a lawsuit.
The court should simply recognize that redress of the kind of grievances spelled out by the state of Massachusetts is the function of Congress and the chief executive, not the federal courts, Roberts said.
His position "involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem," he said.
The decision also is expected to boost California's prospects for gaining EPA approval of its own program to limit tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Federal law considers the state a laboratory on environmental issues and gives California the right to seek approval of standards that are stricter than national norms.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Video and Galleries from Supreme Court
-
Video
Alito Discusses Abortion
-
Video
Questioning Of Alito Begins
-
Video
Challenging 1st Day For Alito
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 152 CommentsThe house of cards folds further.
Perhaps now the Environemental Protection Agency can get back in the business of protecting the environment. That would be a novel idea considering that Bu$h apointed a bunch of industry lobyists to run it.
This is great. Another blow to the Bush admin and its pro business, screw the public mantra.
I wait with bated breath for the ruling about the Clean Water act, heard late last year.
We are one justice short of disaster in this country. One justice! This is the Bush legacy, four fascist judges in the Supreme Court. If you want total corporate rule in America, then by all means vote for another Republican for President in '08. If you care about America, freedom, the natural world, and all creatures under heaven then vote for the Democrat!
Or with their riches, have they produced little Oxygen suits for themselves to walk around in?
Tiny mobile isobaric chambers?
Isn't this a typical conservative reaction. The court disagreed with them, so they are now activist judges. CBS reports give enough in the story to show that the majority also used legal reasons that have withstood the test of time.
We have GOT to replace those liberal pinheads!
Our health, our freedoms, the view or our country in the world, our pending deaths due to increased terrorists attacks by terrorists we have created, all hang by a thread with this madman of a president.
Dogband, I can't for the life of me see why people voted for this guy 2 or 6 years ago. All of W's actions were easily foreseeable. The guy said he was going to dismantle environmental protections, destroy public education, start wars if given half a chance, etc. It was all too evident in his words back then and now. He is truly evil reincarnated.
It is obvious by your room-temperture IQ rantings that you have NO concept as to what the Supreme Court ruling really says.
Remember it was the Senate that voted against ratification of Kyoto, 95-0 in 1997(that included Dems for you Bush haters too blinded to do simple math)
That said, I also find it mind numbing that folks like you have the intelligence to own computers, yet lack any sense of what GW is and what can be done to stop it. Making GW a right-left, liberal-conservative issue is ridiculous. All politicians bore holes in the sky in private jets expecting the masses to clean up the mess.
If you think that GWB is causing all of your problems, you will really be stunned when things don't change when Hillary or Obama get into office.
Get you head out.....
Dave
I think this proves that we have more than a fighting chance to perserve the environment, and if anything, the last 6 years have showed how stupid Bush is for disregarding it.
We have GOT to replace those liberal pinheads!
Posted by klmetz_cbs at 01:24 PM : Apr 02, 2007
Uh, how is this a loss for the people and the Constitution? The constitution is there to PROTECT the people. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... remember? If the world is overrun by pollution, then it will result in death, martial law (no liberty) and everyone will be miserable. Global Climate Change is real. Science says so. It is our RESPONSIBILITY to protect this land so that ALL may enjoy it for millenia to come. So, sounds like to me, the majority of the Supreme Court choose LIFE while you choose the republican party line and choose death. Quite a shame really.
What irks me most is the 4 who "dissented" were all Republican. Dammit, the courts should be completely NON PARTISAN. All supreme court justices as well as ALL judges should throw away their *** party affiliations and just rule based on LAW and what is RIGHT (and by "right" i do not mean Republican). Quite sad really. This nation is going down and it's the fault of those who voted in this mad man and his hunchmen... it's REALLY sad they can't see the wool being pulled over their eyes. It's as CLEAR as day for those on the "outside". But for whatever reason, people want to ROOT for their team whether they're right or wrong. PATHETIC.
dlpracer
Huh?
ST
"President Bush and Vice President Cheney have committed high treason against the United States of America and must be impeached and removed from office according to the rules and laws set forth in our Constitution.
They have claimed that they are no longer subject to the authority of the judicial or legislative branches of our government, and may ignore any law they wish at anytime. They have even claimed that the President may 'sign' a law, while simultaneously signing another statement claiming he is free to ignore it. They have established a network of unconstitutional secret prisons, where both foreign and domestic citizens who have been illegally abducted are sent indeterminately, without charge or representation. Some have been tortured, and some have even been murdered. They have single handedly erased our sacred and traditional right to privacy by claiming they may place anyone they wish under surveillance at any time, even going so far as to specifically claim they may ignore FISA laws. They have started an illegal preemptive war that has needlessly taken the lives of more than 3,000 of our bravest and most noble fighting men and women.
... Never before has America been faced with such an insidious enemy with more contempt for our Constitution and our American way of life, and these enemies occupy the highest levels of our own government."
SearingTruth
We have GOT to replace those liberal pinheads!
Posted by klmetz_cbs at 01:24 PM : Apr 02, 2007
Now you fascist are real bad for this kind of stuff. What the HELL are you talking about swastika breath? The PEOPLE, through their REPRESENTATIVES passed a LAW. That LAW said that our President is supposed to regulate the industry to clean up our air. Some Citizens believed that the Fascist President we now have WASN't doing his job and they wanted to right to sue. The Court agreed with them. It's strange how you people haven't changed your position of the Bill of Rights or our Constitution since the FIRST Liberal's created it. Care to explain WHY you have the SAME positions today you had in 1776? I know you losers wanted a King but after over 200 years it should be apparent to you by now that such is NOT going to be the case.
Get you head out.....
Dave
Posted by dlpracer at 01:31 PM : Apr 02, 2007
LOL Right! A Nazi Ditto Head is going to tell all of us what the COURT meant! LOL Man that is funny. The Court said that the PEOPLE of this nation had the right to Sue Sir Lies-A-Lot because under his guidence and that of the Gestapo, the EPA was NOT regulating Green House Gases. The Court went on to find by a compelling amount of evidence that CONGRESS, you do remember them don't you (Nazi's tend to forget the representative Democracy exist at times), intended those gases to be regulated. Now what your hatred for your fellow citizens because of their dislike for your fuehrer has to do with that, I guess you have to carry a swasitka to understand. LOL
Get you head out.....
Dave
Posted by dlpracer at 01:31 PM : Apr 02, 2007
YES I truly do hate George W. Bush. With all the LIES and Incompetence what's not to hate. The question is why don't you hate the slimy piece of Southern Fascist? He's no more an American than Saddam and understands our Democracy as well too. Sieg Heil Y'all.
.....yawn.
Please share with me your efforts to reduce GW?
tick, tick, tick, tick...
Times up....that's right the answer is "nothing".
Kinda like the President you hate with such venom, it's impacting your ability take care of those around you. tsk, tsk
Dave
l8c6
Wow. A truth of singular eloquence. Very well said patriot l8c6.
ST
"We need not debate the existence of our three branches of government, only the punishment for those who would destroy them."
SearingTruth
"The safest and most secure type of society is one with machine gun toting security police on every corner, empowered with full authority to detain, search, torture, and convict citizens at will. You will find almost no public dissidence in this type of society, where the only crimes are committed by the government itself."
SearingTruth
A Future of the Brave - www.searingtruth.com
Fellow citizens, the truth is that our present can only be as stable as our future.
For too long we have hobbled from decade to decade, generation to generation, and millennium to millennium, myopically adhering to superfluous battles that can never be won. Never once as a species forwarding or embracing an all encompassing path towards a certainly better future.
Our excuses have been many, our reasoning mostly incoherent, and our lack of vision as a species, certainly fatal.
For in the meantime, as each tick of the ages has passed, the critical threats posed and ignored by our species discordance have increased exponentially.
Pandemic famine and disease, massively destructive weapons, fatal atmospheric and climate change, super volcanic eruptions, catastrophic space body impacts, Orwellian societies of unparalleled oppression, and many other global catastrophes too numerous to list here, waiting to befall us at any moment.
In fact, one of the most immediate and ominous threats facing America and much of the world today is the utilization of advanced technologies for the implementation of authoritarian control over societies.
...
In retrospect, when one soberly considers the critical challenges that we must face together to survive as a species, our differences, at times, can become almost imperceptible.
Excerpt from A Future of the Brave
A Future of the Brave - www.searingtruth.com
The Clinton Administration never submitted the Kyoto protocol to the Senate for ratification. The 95-0 vote you refer to was a non binding 'sense of the senate' resolution saying United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing nations as well as for the USA. (This was voted on before the Kyoto treaty was even completed, as a way to influence the final wording of the document).
While there may be legitimate disagreement on how soon Global Warming will affect our environment, it is a real problem that needs to be addressed. The move by the Supreme Court today is a small step in the right direction.
Posted by kalatur2 at 02:13 PM : Apr 02, 2007
That is a fair question. I base my opinion purely on the following:
JOhn Roberts - appointed by Bush
Samuel Alito - appointed by Bush
Antonin Scalia - Appointed by Reagan but Bush wanted him as Chief Justice for a while, remember that? he even said that Scalia was his FAVORITE judge.
And last but not least, Clarence Thomas - appointed by Daddy Bush.
Interesting how all had something to do with BUSH.
The fact of the matter is, these judges vote a certain way almost all the time and it goes USUALLY (but not always) along the republican party's view on things... PERIOD. Dispute that please.
Interesting how ALL the rest of the judges appointed by various presidents (Democrat and Republican alike) view things a different way than these "Bushies"
Yikes!!!
Let it all out. There are therapist in your area that can help you through this,...sorry, it is what it is....conspiracy-rage you are going through.
For you, there appears to be a right-wing boogie man behind every rock. Does this help you deal with the randomness that life brings??
Or are all of life ups and downs a neo-con driven issue. Some stats from the Clinton years: Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47 - Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33 - Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61 - Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122
Dave
When will you pinheads figure out that all of "industry" is not evil, and that the wonderful "white knights" at Greenpeace are a bunch of very highly paid lawyers who make a LOT of money saying anything they can negative about US business. GM could build a car tomorrow that ran on water and emitted rode petals and greenpeace would complain about the litter.
What you call big business is mostly middle class people who are trying to make a living, raise families and pay their bills. You take such joy in attacking them, these are your neighbors.
At the same time, you talk like the japanese are perfect and wonderful, becasue you have swallowed the BS marketing line they fed you. Look at the TOTAL carbon cost of a prius, and you find it is more responsible to buy a Hummer. BTW - you think they are wonderful, well while they are gleefully taking your money, they think you are animals. Gaijin pigs, all of you and they are laughing at you.
They think you are stupid enough to think that ToyotaUSA is an American company. Are you?
What you call big business is mostly middle class people who are trying to make a living, raise families and pay their bills. You take such joy in attacking them, these are your neighbors.
Posted by bobfishinguy at 02:39 PM : Apr 02, 2007
Middle class? Since when are the executives at Exxon or McDonalds or Walmart middle class? Of course I understand businesses give me a job. Am I against big businesses? Not particularly, I just see many big businesses as being greedy and then whining about having to pay a little more for improvements while they pay their retiring ceo's a couple billion dollars (Exxon). You know so he can continue his way of life. I have no problem with a person starting and running a business and making a profit. Thats America. I do have a problem with a big business taking advantage of a small person because the company needs money, and all the while they are more than willing to give a raise to the ceo.
There has been so many errors by this administration one just can't keep count.
" What you call big business is mostly middle class people." Haliburton recently relocated to Dubai from Houston to avoid paying taxes on the millions they overcharged us, and the Republicans handed to them, to do substandard work in the Mideast. Exxon posted a record profit while American soldiers die defending oil rich Iraq. You are a toad.
Sorry to screw up your story by introducting a few facts:
There were no Houston layoffs and Halliburton continues to employ roughly 4,000 people there, including the company's chief operating officer, chief financial officer and general counsel.
In addition, Halliburton, which has operated in Dubai for more than 40 years, will remain a U.S. corporation for tax purposes, incorporated in Delaware, and doesn't expect to reap any tax benefits from the Dubai headquarters operation.
Oops...dang facts.
Dave
Posted by bobfishinguy at 02:39 PM : Apr 02, 2007
Source?
The MOST efficient Hummer (H3 5.7L)is rated by the EPA at 15 MPG City and 19 MPG Hwy.
The Toyota Prius is not listed, but the Honda Civic Hybrid is rated at 49 MPG City and 51 MPG Hwy.
I think you're about as full of it as a 37" sewer pipe.
"When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius%u2019s arch nemesis."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/12/business/main2558620.shtml
Federal investigators last month alleged Halliburton was responsible for $2.7 billion of the $10 billion in contractor waste and overcharging in Iraq.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., called the decision to move as "an example of corporate greed at its worst."
"This is an insult to the U.S. soldiers and taxpayers who paid the tab for their no-bid contracts and endured their overcharges for all these years," Leahy said in a statement.
"At the same time they'll be avoiding U.S. taxes, I'm sure they won't stop insisting on taking their profits in cold hard U.S. cash," Leahy said.
Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is already planning a hearing on Halliburton's move, Time Magazine reports online.
Getting an issue such as this to the Supreme Court is nothing more than a judicial farce and gross waste of time.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 152 Comments