Welcome To Our Best Deals For Xmas Gifts Outlet Online Store Orders Over $150 , Enjoy Free Shipping,save $20 shipping cost!

mens sneakers

Published: Tuesday 23 July, 2013

mens sneakers mens sneakers Court throws out silly suit on global warming



Supreme Court has unanimously thrown out a rather ridiculous tort action brought by eight states seeking to get the court in the business of regulating greenhouse gas emissions.



Heres a good piece from the Heritage Foundation on it by Hans Van Spakovsky. Spakovsky notes that the majority agreed that it was the job of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases because the Court had previously decided in Massachusetts v. Alito joined in the judgment of the court, but did so the assumption which I make for the sake of argument because no party contends otherwise that the interpretation of the Clean Air Act adopted by the majority in Massachusetts v. EPA is correct. In mens sneakers other words, Alito and Thomas were questioning what many have previously disputed the erroneous conclusion of the Cour mens sneakers t that carbon dioxide is even a that is covered under the Clean Air Act.



Good question. And the answer is clearly no.



As you can see in the original ruling in the case of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency:



The Act defines pollutant to include air pollution agent or combination of such agents mens sneakers , including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.



Notice the tautology employed by the judges there. An air pollutant is any air pollution agent. But is the carbon dioxide emitted by motor vehicles an air pollution agent? To answer that let us look at another gas emitted by engines: oxygen. Is oxygen a pollutant?



It seems so, at least according to the judges ruling. If the definition of pollutant can be stretched to include any perfectly natural substance that enters the atmosphere, then oxygen is indeed a pollutant.



In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia made that exact point in defending the EPAs prior ruling that CO2 is not a pollutant:



Not only is EPA interpretation reasonable, it is far more plausible than the Court alternative. As the Court correctly points out, all airborne compounds of whatever stripe, ante, at 26, would qualify as physical, chemical, . . . substances or matter which are emitted into or otherwise enter the ambient air, 42 U. S. C. It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an air pollutant. This reading of the statute defies common sense.



And of course if CO2 is a pollutant, then every human is subject to being sued by those eight states one of which was New Jersey until we dropped out, by the way. According to this site, motor vehicles contribute about 15 percent of CO2 emissions.



StarLedger publisher says newspaper will close if unions dont give concessionsOutrage over Millburn home invasion and beating quadruples reward for suspectSupreme Court says married gay couples should get same benefits as heterosexuals. mens sneakers

Back
#28 Women's William Carrier Jersey: Adidas NHL Vegas Golden Knights Backer Slim Fit V-Neck Black T-Shirt