If You'll Handle Statutory Interpretation, I'll Keep the Structure of the Atmosphere Straight

So the Supreme Court is presently hearing oral arguments in Massachusetts (et al.) v. Environmental Protection Agency , allowing us to receive these bon mots from Antonin "Inconsistently Pro-Death" Scalia.

Scalia observes that there is a difference between an "air pollutant" and a "stratospheric pollutant." Milkey interrupts: "Respectfully, Your Honor. It is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere." Scalia shoots back that he's not a scientist, laughing, "That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth."

Well, actually both tropospheric and stratospheric carbon dioxide contribute to the problem, but I'm not going to expect the learned Justices to know that. I wonder, however, what Scalia meant by the distinction between "air pollutant" and "stratospheric pollutant," because that, milord, is a matter of statutory interpretation. And that's what very much worries me about the arguments in this case as reported, they seem to be very much focused on the factual basis for global warming and whether the relief Massachusetts is seeking will have any effect. Considering that the worst case scenario will not happen for a century or so and Boston is subsiding anyway, the Supreme Court is being stretched to its imaginative limits by the relief issue, not to mention the limits of the Justices' scientific education.

But Lithwick does a fairly good job in this article going to the heart of the issue fairly quickly. What is the meaning of Section 202 of the Clean Air Act? What is an "air pollutant"? What is meant by "reasonably anticipated to endanger human health or welfare?" The relief issues are really a distraction from the latter question. The Chinese emit a lot of carbon monoxide these days, but the Federal Government sees a need to regulate CO emissions in this country, even though there is a bit of a danger to human health when the Chinese pollutant plume crosses the Pacific. But Mr. Testerfield, you say, (yes, it's Mr. Testerfield today...one of those days), isn't CO emitted in the United States an immediately health hazard within the United States? Well, yes, that's the one of the matters the Court needs to consider. How immediate must the danger be? How direct? Would anyone in Congress in 1977 think that the Clean Air Act was meant to regulate the hot air coming out of their own mouths? How flexible is an environmental regulatory authorization statute? That's what the lawyers should be arguing before the Justices.

ESA(20061130.1)

P.B. Happy St. Andrew's Day! Have you kissed a Scot today?

The Union of Islamic Courts Is Like The Republican Party, Except Islamic

Well, that's not exactly a rigorous analysis of this BBC item. But there is a strong analogy to be made between an uneasy union of Salafists and Qutubists and an uneasy union of paleoconservatives and neoconservatives. Of course, I only see the parallel, because I consider Strauss, Bloom, and the philosophical talent behind the current Administration to be postmodernist in epistemology. There is enough evidence to suggest that they don't believe in objective reality and believe reality is socially constructed by those in power, i.e. them (preferably) . I haven't read enough Qutub to know whether he shares the epistemology of the postmoderns he critiques. But I do know he is likely the philosopher of Al-Qaida (or at least the Islamic Brotherhood), so to hear of Qutubists being more moderate and desirous of engagement with the West was mildly shocking to me. So I'll try not to paint Qutub with such a broad brush in the future.


If This Were The Late Roman Republic, Mike Stark Might Be Dead

I don't know if you've seen this story , but the video is frightening. Of course, violence and politics are strongly associated in both American and Roman political history. In historical context, Stark's treatment was fairly mild. It still wasn't right, and both George Allen and Elizabeth Dole should be ashamed to have had any association with it or to have justified it.

Mike Stark happens to be an ex-Marine and a 1L at UVA. He also has a blog... He hasn't posted since the incident, but his most recent comment thread contains many wishes of support and one especially disturbing condemnation by a blogger calling himself Sam Johnston,

Hey! You sure were taught a lesson in Virginia. You gotta know by now that we Republicans don’t suffer fools… FOOL! I loved to see those guys smash your face in… They were punching for JESUS! We gonna treat you like we treat Iraq and everyone else that messes with America.

A vote for the Republicans is a vote against people like you and for dealing with people like you properly.

I pray that people think about this on Tuesday!

.

At Morning Prayer this morning, the Gospel was a sermon recorded in Matthew 5, commonly called the Beatitudes. In Mr. Johnston's Bible, the Beatitudes apparently are the BEATitudes.

Later, Mr. Johnston replied to a proponent of crunchy granola hippie Christology,

“You do recognize that Jesus isn’t affiliated with EITHER political party, don’t you? You DO know Jesus was actually a LIBERAL, don’t you? Heres the evidence…what self-rightous conservitive would grow long hair and a beard, wear sandals, and spend all his spare time hanging out with a hooker and a possie of thirteen dirty unemployed friends begging him to turn water into wine?”

Point one: This is a disgusting slander on OUR LORD and savior which I personally find very hateful. It hurts my feelings and i hope you burn in hell forever.

Point two: You’re wrong. And here’s the proof:

http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/2006/10/05/was-jesus-a-liberal-no.aspx

Point three: Vote Republican!"

What is the old saw? The meek will inherit the earth, because they are the ones who survive.

The funny thing is that I probably will be voting for a Republican for non-judicial office next Tuesday. But it's OK. He's an honorary Kennedy.

ESA(20061101.1)