I know. The short termism stupidity (driven by greed) of mankind is truly something to behold. The dinosaurs got real unlucky and a totally outside of their control freak event finished them. We are going one better in the being dumber than a dinosaur stakes and simply finishing our future selves off by our own avoidable actions. I suppose once we are reduced to Neanderthal status again, the world might have time to rebalance itself and start over? Sucks to be all our great grandchildren though.

Horrible news: SCOTUS issues stay on power plant regs: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-obama-epa-coal-emissions-regulations.html

Case to be heard 6/2.

I think the stay is ridiculous. I just can’t see much of a legal justification for it, tho I’m open to reasoning.

I just love how all the people who cry about judicial activism are cheering SCOTUS on this.

Remember, it’s only activism when you disagree. Otherwise it’s the Court doing it’s Constitutional duty.

‘Supreme court to block Obama’s sweeping climate change plan’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/09/climate-change-supreme-court-barack-obama-plan

The supreme court agreed to block Barack Obama’s clean power plan on Tuesday, raising fears that the centrepiece of his climate change plan could be overturned.

The unexpected decision creates instant uncertainty about the future of Obama’s climate plan and the historic global agreement to fight climate change reached in Paris last December.

The White House registered its immediate disapproval, and said in a statement that the administration would continue taking “aggressive steps” to reduce climate pollution. “We disagree with the supreme court’s decision,” the White House said.

But officials told reporters in a conference call that they remained confident this was a “bump in the road”, and that the plan would prevail.

The officials also said Obama had been briefed and would speak on the decisions soon.

The surprising vote by the justices put a temporary freeze on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules cutting carbon emissions from power plants until the Washington DC circuit court of appeals hears challenges from 29, mainly Republican-led states, and dozens of corporations and industry groups. Arguments are scheduled for 2 June.

The 5-4 decision for a stay came as a shock to the EPA and environmental campaign groups, and was widely seen as a sign that opponents of the power-plant rules have made a strong argument against the plan.

“We’re disappointed the rule has been stayed, but you can’t stay climate change and you can’t stay climate action,” said Melissa Harrison, an EPA spokeswoman. “We believe strongly in this rule and we will continue working with our partners to address carbon pollution.”

Margie Alt, the director of Environment America said in a statement: “This decision is a huge loss for our kids’ future and for all Americans who care about the health of our planet, and a huge win for the polluters and the deniers.” She added that she hoped it would only be a temporary setback.

“It is not what we had hoped for,” Joanne Spalding, senior climate counsel for the Sierra Club, said. “We are disappointed.”

Opponents of the EPA rules – who had described the clean power plan as a “war on coal” – said the stay was an indication the carbon cutting regulations would eventually be overturned.

West Virginia, one of the states leading the legal challenge, said it was thrilled at the outcome.

“Make no mistake – this is a great victory for West Virginia,” Patrick Morrisey, the state’s attorney general, said in a statement.

The main lobby group for the coal industry claimed the decision indicated the supreme court was leaning in their favor on the broader legal challenge.

“We are pleased the supreme court took this unprecedented step to protect the states from further economic harm while the courts are deciding whether the administration’s power plan is unlawful and unconstitutional,” said Mike Duncan, president of Americans for Clean Coal Electricity. “The stay is a signal the supreme court has serious concerns with the power plan. We’re optimistic the power plan will ultimately be rejected.”

Republicans in Congress claimed the stay was a rebuke to Obama’s use of his executive powers to fight climate change – in the absence of any legislative efforts. “Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is an important step toward reining in the Obama administration’s unprecedented abuse of executive power,” Deb Fischer, Republican Senator from Nebraska, said in a statement.

So the usual suspects are making progress as difficult as possible, it’s like they really do not believe what the scientists are telling us:

‘A full catalogue of the Antarctic ice shelves that should terrify us’:

Even with decades of melting, much of the world’s water lies trapped in ice that sits on land. If Antarctic ice melted entirely, it’s estimated that ocean levels would rise by roughly 60 meters—a nearly incomprehensible figure.

But a lot of it wouldn’t reach the ocean by melting. Instead, large areas of the Antarctic ice sheet sit on rock that’s below sea level. Were the ocean to reach these sheets, the ice would break up and float off while melting, a process that could raise sea levels relatively suddenly. Now, researchers have performed a catalog of all of the ice that empties into the ocean in Antarctica, allowing us to identify those that pose the largest threat of rapid sea-level rise.

etc

It’s actually the exact opposite of judicial activism - it’s requiring governmental bodies to act only within their jurisdiction and rights, which is what the judges are supposed to do (respect the allocation of governmental authority in the constitution, not expand its scope). You’re not supposed to be able to indirectly create laws that you couldn’t otherwise pass just by delegating authority to an administrative body.

Are these regulations not supported by existing law?

The point of the court case is to determine whether they are supported by existing law, including the constitution.

Issuing the stay is judicial activism.

Officials and environmental experts said this is likely unprecedented; the Supreme Court hasn’t prevented a regulation from taking effect so early, before lower courts even get a chance to decide on its legality.

Then I don’t really see the big deal, either way.

The theory goes - as I understand it - that a stay is put in place to prevent unrecoverable costs to the affected industry should it be overturned. As for whether or not it’s “judicial activism,” we’d have to know what’s in the hearts of those who ruled in favor of the stay. On it’s own without any context, it’s not as far as I can tell.

Judicial activism usually means that the court is making a decision which essentially creates its own law. I’m not seeing any element of this stay which could be interpreted as such.

My interpretation is based on the word unprecedented. I thought appeal courts are loathe to set precedent. Could be wrong.

It’s just a statement that some people said the courts don’t normally issue of stay of regulations so quickly.

'Fund managers who ignore climate risk ‘could face legal action’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/10/fund-managers-who-ignore-climate-risk-could-face-legal-action

Pension and investment fund managers who ignore the risks of climate change face the prospect of legal action, according to financial and legal experts.

Global warming poses a systemic risk to the world economy and could significantly cut the value of investments, the experts argue, so those with fiduciary responsibility have a duty to act to reduce that risk, or be taken to court.

“Clients of investment firms and beneficiaries of pension funds might have a legal case to bring if those who manage money for them stand idly by as emissions erode the value of their stock,” said Howard Covington, the former CEO of a £20bn asset management company and a trustee of environmental law organisation, ClientEarth. “We are currently exploring such a possibility.”

James Thornton, CEO of ClientEarth, said: “To produce a wholesale change in attitude, a court ruling on the obligations of fiduciary investors to control systemic climate risk will probably be needed. Because of the uncertainties in estimating future climate damage, this will not be an easy case to bring. But we anticipate that such a case will ultimately succeed.”

ClientEarth successfully sued the UK government in 2015 over illegal levels of air pollution. It has also helped investors file shareholder resolutions at the annual meetings of major mining companies demanding more transparency on the risks of climate change to their businesses.

But Covington said: “It would be fair to say that not a lot of progress has been made with this kind of engagement. It requires investors to put their heads above the parapet, but most investors like a quiet life.”

In an article published in the journal Nature on Wednesday, Covington, Thornton and Oxford University professor of energy economics, Cameron Hepburn, say that investors will be crucial in ensuring the largely voluntary climate change deal sealed in Paris in December is implemented.

“Investors will play a major part, either voluntarily or because they will be forced by the courts to meet their legal obligations to manage climate risk,” they argue.

The authors say that dangerous climate change could damage the global economy by, for example, droughts and heatwaves that lead to famines which in turn lead to migrations of millions of people. They estimate there is a 5% chance of global investment portfolios being reduced by 10% - $7tn - in coming decades, a level of risk and exposure that is routinely declared and acted on by big companies today.

Prof Hepburn said: “The risk exceeds the legal test of materiality and should be too large to ignore. In practice most investors neglect it entirely.”

The team estimate publicly listed companies - largely owned by investment and pension funds - account for about a quarter of global emissions. The investors can reduce the risk of climate change by demanding action to cut carbon emissions from the companies they have stakes in and shifting investment from fossil fuel companies to green companies, the authors say.

I’m pretty sure this will become a future norm, like the tobacco industry went through, just wider ranging and more indepth as all the cost mount up for climate change.

It’s almost like that’s what the SCOTUS is for. But when they do it for stuff they don’t agree with, then magically it’s “activism” somehow. Weird.

See the difference is, when I disagree, I don’t call it Judicial Activism. The same can’t be said for the other side. See: Desslock’s post. I mean it’s the “opposite of judicial activism” people!!! THE OPPOSITE!! Oh wait, it’s the same thing, only this time he supports the call, so therefor it’s perfect and just and how the system is supposed to work.

I consider Citizen’s United a complete failure of a judgement, but I wouldn’t call it “activism” anymore than I would call Obergefell v. Hodges “activism”. It’s conservative-speak for “I don’t think my laws should be ever declared unjust, but I’m fine with it happening to yours.” It’s stupid.

It’ll be judicial activism when they uphold the regulations, of course.

‘CSIRO chief confirms climate modelling and monitoring jobs to be halved’:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/11/csiro-chief-confirms-climate-modelling-and-monitoring-jobs-to-be-halved

Australia is one to watch on climate change, as it really is the front-runner globally in not taking it seriously (Murdoch press and big hitters like Rinehart (richest mining women) all controlling that direction).

There are plenty of Australians and press that takes seriously climate change. The problem is that the previous labor government got a second term promising not to pursue a carbon tax and then tried to pass it anyway. That lead to the current conservative government, which is on its second PM. Most think the current PM probably does believe in climate change, but he faces a struggling economy due to reliance on exports to China and probably had to make deals with the right wing of his party to rise to power. End result is big budget cuts to this particular agency.

I don’t think you understand this topic very well because you’re misusing terms and you’re completely wrong, so I’ll try to better explain it:

It’s the role of the judiciary to determine whether or not a law, or governmental action, is “legal” - which means that the law/action is within the jurisdiction of the body passing/taking it (so a municipality couldn’t, for instance, pass a law prohibiting trade with China; or a State couldn’t take an action within exclusively Federal jurisdiction or vice versa) AND the law/action doesn’t violate any overriding law, such as the Bill of Rights.

Regardless of the outcome of the judiciary’s determination – i.e., whether they find the action/law to be legal, or whether they find it to not be legal - either are perfectly fine, and NEITHER is “judicial activism”. So whether or not the court upholds (or rejects) the law doesn’t matter - there isn’t a “side” that determines whether something is judicial activism, because neither is.

(so Soapyfrog, it would not be judicial activism if they upheld the regulation).

“judicial activism” is when the judiciary usurps the role of the Congress by creating laws instead of just interpreting and judging them. It’s not the role of the judiciary to create laws – all it’s supposed to do is state whether the law is constitutional/legal or not. It’s judicial activism when judges expand laws beyond what congress has actually written – for instance, if a law says it’s illegal to paint your house purple and someone challenges that law, it’s not “judicial activism” if the court decides that law is legal OR if the court decides that law is illegal – either determination is fine.

What’s “judicial activism” is if the court instead came back with a decision that said “the court finds it’s illegal to paint your house purple, but it’s also illegal to paint your house blue or green” - even though there’s nothing in the written law that prohibits blue or green houses. They’re essentially writing a new law which is not their role - it’s the role of the lawmakers – all the court should be able to do is strike down a law as illegal and force the lawmakers to come up with a replacement law.