2/22/2023 0 Comments Words from outset![]() ![]() national-climate assessment forecast that the average number of 100-degree days in Texas could triple from about 40 a year over the past decade to 120 annually toward the end of this century if carbon emissions are not curtailed.” And as Ronald Brownstein, writing for The Atlantic, points out, “models prepared for the latest U.S. San Antonio had 17 days of triple-digit heat in June the norm is two. Last month, from the Carolinas to Chicago, days of unprecedented triple-digit heat became the “new normal.”īut perhaps Texas provides the most apt illustration for those weary of this “crisis of the day.”ĭescribed as suffering the highest “exceptional” drought conditions, the ranchers of east Texas are selling off their cattle, the cost of hay has skyrocketed in central Texas, and crop and livestock losses in West Texas are tracking to exceed the worst prior drought in the state’s history. ![]() More than 98% of the American Southwest was in drought this week, with reservoirs at unprecedented record lows in Nevada, California, New Mexico, and the entire Colorado River basin, all stemming from the worst mega-drought in 1200 years. As of this week, there were 500 fires burning in Alaska, with more acreage burned in June than in the entirety of 20. The fire season in California began a full two months early this year. What’s important are the real-world consequences to the rest of us of what these people write and otherwise decree as the “law.” But ultimately they’re not really important. These ironies and rhetorical flourishes are all interesting, if disconcerting, particularly coming from O’Connor, who famously reacted in horror when it appeared-fleetingly-that her successor might be chosen by Al Gore rather than George W. ![]() But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.” United States case-the same case Roberts now uses to justify gutting the authority of a federal agency explicitly tasked with “protecting the environment” in favor of direct, seemingly hand-held Congressional direction under the new and whimsical “major questions” doctrine-was actually a decision denying the power of Congress to invoke such a policy.Īs O’Connor wrote, well before “climate change” was even recognized as a term, “Some truths are so basic that, like the air around us, they are easily overlooked. It’s also interesting that the same 1992 New York v. A “pressing national problem,” as O’Connor herself acknowledged at the time, but one hardly as existentially dire as combating climate change. United Statescase he cites ultimately addressed the ability of Congress to compel states to provide adequate means and facilities to dispose of low-level radioactive waste. “The crisis of the day” is an interesting choice of words. It’s interesting, for example, because the language Roberts decided to quote was that of former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). So silly, you see, that “right to privacy” thing was all just an error from the get-go! You can trust us, though, really.Īs Roberts opined, in the Court’s bold, black Century Schoolbook font:Ĭapping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible "solution to the crisis of the day." New York v. In the Dobbs case, for example, where the mere tapping of a few keystrokes turned half the American population into second-class citizens with limited rights of personal autonomy and health choices, we were haughtily advised, “The Court finds that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.” Further, we were told that the 50 years of precedent which the Court so blithely threw aside last month were “egregiously wrong” from the outset. ![]() Just so future generations who are diminished, harmed, or even wiped out by its edicts can have a useful point of reference when assigning blame for the catastrophic consequences of its decisions to nine unelected people who bestow life-altering pronouncements against American citizens judiciously, and on a regularly scheduled basis. Now that the United States Supreme Court, under its seemingly unstoppable, so-called “conservative” majority, has transformed itself into a de facto purveyor of systematic state terror, it’s probably a good time to start memorializing its more pithy statements for posterity. John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |