Justices Divided Over Greenhouse Gas Regulations

, The National Law Journal

   |5 Comments

U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared to be in the market for a compromise on Monday in a high-stakes dispute over the Environmental Protection Agency's power to regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources.

What's being said

  • not available

    Re comment on CO2 as pollutant. Whether CO2 is an essential ingredient of life is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether excess emissions from non-natural sources (those we can control) are harmful. Water is also an essential ingredient of life, but too much can drown you.

  • not available

    Since when is the Court obligated to seek compromise? I thought their purpose was to interpret the Constitution and uphold it. I concur with the comment, below as well.

  • not available

    And all based on the misbegotten notion that CO2 is a "pollutant," raher than what it really is--an essential ingredient of life on earth.

  • not available

    And all this because globally averaged temperatures rose one-third of a degree Celsius from 1978-1997, and then levelled off since 1997. The greatest scientific fraud in history, propelled by 100 billion in federal research grants. A cause only a statist liberal could love.

  • not available

    AS USUAL, JUSTICE SCALIA IS CORRECT AND BY THE WAY WHY DOES EPA HIRE SO MANY LAWYERS.ANOTHER NIXON SCREW-UP "EPA"

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202644317874

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.