WolfEyes
Well known member no one knows
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2018
- Messages
- 4,144
- SL Rez
- 2004
- Joined SLU
- 2009
The leaked draft opinion that signals the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade has sparked fear not only among abortion activists, but also environmental lawyers who say the federal government should have expansive legal authority to tackle the climate crisis.
The draft opinion, published by Politico on Monday, indicates that at least five conservative justices are willing to cast aside long-standing precedent to achieve major objectives on the political right, these environmental lawyers said.
That does not bode well, they said, for the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision in West Virginia v. EPA, a challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate carbon emissions from the power sector, the country's second-largest source of planet-warming pollution.
“The court's dismissive attitude toward precedent … is really just another signal of a conservative majority that's eager to roll up its sleeves and fix all the issues in the law that conservatives have complained about for years,” Dan Farber, a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley, told The Climate 202.
“And climate regulation is seen by conservatives as a dramatic example of regulatory overreach because Congress hasn't passed any specific laws that tell EPA to go regulate [carbon emissions],” he added.
Nathan Richardson, a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law and a university fellow at Resources for the Future, agreed with that assessment.
Supreme Court leak strikes fear among environmental lawyers (msn.com)
The draft opinion, published by Politico on Monday, indicates that at least five conservative justices are willing to cast aside long-standing precedent to achieve major objectives on the political right, these environmental lawyers said.
That does not bode well, they said, for the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision in West Virginia v. EPA, a challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate carbon emissions from the power sector, the country's second-largest source of planet-warming pollution.
“The court's dismissive attitude toward precedent … is really just another signal of a conservative majority that's eager to roll up its sleeves and fix all the issues in the law that conservatives have complained about for years,” Dan Farber, a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley, told The Climate 202.
“And climate regulation is seen by conservatives as a dramatic example of regulatory overreach because Congress hasn't passed any specific laws that tell EPA to go regulate [carbon emissions],” he added.
Nathan Richardson, a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law and a university fellow at Resources for the Future, agreed with that assessment.
Supreme Court leak strikes fear among environmental lawyers (msn.com)