When Alito's name was being mentioned as a SCOTUS candidate Knight Ridder did a study on him and discovered that most of the time he came down on the side of power and authority over the individual.

A Knight Ridder analysis of more than 300 written opinions by Alito, for example, reveals that he has almost never found a government search unconstitutional and that he has argued to relax warrant requirements and to broaden the kinds of searches that warrants permit. ... overall, his record on this subject has produced near-uniform results in favor of government authority. This has frequently drawn sharp disagreement from his Third Circuit colleagues, with one accusing him of approving an 'Orwellian' invasion of privacy in one case." [Knight-Ridder, 1/9/06]

They concluded that, "although Alito's opinions are rarely written with obvious ideology, he's seldom sided with a criminal defendant, a foreign national facing deportation, an employee alleging discrimination or consumers suing big business."

I'll bet I know how Alito voted.

Cranky, Do you have a link? I can look it up, but generally when you refer to something here we all appreciate the link. I agree that the movie is something they will likely scoff at, because they are scoffy-type people. I do remember that speach, and it was very moving. Thanks, Jan Knaus

Along with most other commenters, I haven't read the opinions; however, I suspect that the case had little if anything to do with global warming.

The question is whether a bureaucracy ought to be empowered, by the method of statutory interpretation, to extend the scope of a law in order to solve a problem the legislature never envisioned when the law was adopted.

The Commerce Clause is already overworked. Note that states trying to solve pollution problems or permit the use of medical marijuana are prevented from doing so by the federal government claiming sole jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause. And bureaucracies piggyback on those federal laws by issuing regulations based upon their own interpretations of the statutes they administer.

Probably as a result of the court's decisions in civil rights cases and on abortion and privacy issues, we liberals have looked to the courts rather than legislatures to solve problems. But democracy requires that a majority of the citizenry -- and not eight old men and one old woman -- decide where we're going.

Be careful what you wish for.

Rather than send a present to the bad guys, I'd like to send a thank you to the good guys.  Would that be gauche? <grin>

aMike

Carbon dioxide is a pollutant; it is also a greenhouse gas. The problem arises because the Clean Air Act does not expressly and was not intended to regulate greenhouse gasses.

Now, by its interpretation of the statute an agency or a court can play some pretty sophisticated games. For example, it can say that sulpher dioxide is regulated because it destroys lakes and harms commerce; and therefore, greenhouse gasses can be regulated because they raise sea temperatures and harm the fishing industry. All very neat.

But at the time the Clean Air Act was enacted the Congress wasn't concerned with greenhouse gasses or global warming. Now that we recognize the problem it is the Congress to whom we should look to address and fix it and not to a bunch of revolving-door, industry-appointed administrative bureaucrats.

The environmentalists are pleased with the decision because they believe that the next administration will regulate greenhouse gasses. Maybe they're right; but maybe not.

All that's been accomplished, in my view, is that the Supreme Court has given the Congress a pass.

According to The Times, you're all wrong: the dispute wasn't about the bureaucracy's power or global warming: it was about standing to sue. I'd like to hear a clearer exaplanation of this however. What bizarre theory is the right supporting this time? It sounds like no one as well as no state in their view has the power to sue when it comes to harm from pollution! How do they come to that conclusion?

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

I've been thinking.  There is no "statute of limitations" on impeachment, you know.  Scalia did some pretty egregious things a few years ago, traveling and socializing with someone who had an issue before the court....  Just say'n.