US Supreme Court Rules in Greenhouse Gas Case - Science Should Remain Guide Post for Rule of Law.

Yesterdays ruling is a victory for those of the opinion that corporate power must be effectively regulated to save the Republic.


"..the 'Bushite Regime' has used issues such as abortion, intelligent design and the size of government to divide us while they project their corporate agenda, through the middle."

From the NYT, April 2, 2007
(my emphasis)

"In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal."

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia (Reagan Appointee), Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., all Bush administration appointees, ruled against the majority; indicating a split in the supreme court between those who champion corporate interests, one the one hand; and the 5 justices who ruled that any evaluation of the law should be guided by scientifically acknowledged facts; a corner stone of the Republic.*

(* I am not a lawyer, so in my search for some sources on the basic tenants in the Rule of Law, I was textually drown (dam lawyers).

So, right to the source of law in the USA, the Congress. These rules of evidence, passed by Congress to update previous, similar law, show how important scientific evidence is to the process.)

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE(pdf)
DECEMBER 1, 2006

THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Rule 702. Testimony by Experts
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist
the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact
in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of
an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient
facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable
principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles
and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas have corporate backgrounds. Justices Scalia and Alito do not, but have positions on key issues which make them corporate-friendly. Scalia supported Nixon during Watergate and after; and is seen to have "deep respect for the executive branch". Scalia's position thus aids in destroying the separation of powers, which is in the corporate interest. Justice Alito has a libertarian streak, and as such, I believe, incorrectly balances corporate freedom and personal freedom; failing to recognize that corporations are not like the individual owners of the companies of yesteryear, but rather they are soulless Things upon which limits need to be placed.

The interests of the Powerful in the Republic are naturally reflected in law; as corporate power grows, the laws of the Republic will, more and more, reflect their interest.

I hope this article will help people of all political stripes to see that the 'Bushite Regime' has used issues such as abortion, intelligent design and the size of government to divide us; while they project their corporate agenda through the middle.

The Reagan/Bush Supreme Court appointments, all surrounded by much consternation, have a common thread; they all represent the interests of Corporate Power, as this case illuminates.