pageok
pageok
pageok
Three Years and Waiting:

It's now been over three years since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument in Connecticut v. American Electric Power. In this case, several state AGs sued the nation's largest utility companies alleging their facilities contribute to the "public nuisance" of global warming and seeking court-imposed emission reductions. A Second Circuit panel, which included Judge Sotomayor, heard the case on June 7, 2006, and the litigants have been waiting for a decision ever since. Greenwire reports on the delay here.

Kazinski:
The utilities should just shut down for a week or two and await further instructions.
6.8.2009 1:38pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):
Is something like this appealable? That is, can the supreme court either force a decision by the 2nd ct or decide it themselves?
6.8.2009 2:19pm
Testes:
How about a Writ of Mandamus!
6.8.2009 2:28pm
Steven Den Beste (www):
"Delay is the deadliest form of denial".

I wonder if they're waiting until the issue becomes moot, either because of new federal law or because of Supreme Court decision.

Ain't really what circuit courts should do, but given how thorny the issues are, I could understand the temptation.
6.8.2009 3:47pm
PeteP (mail):
"In this case, several state AGs sued the nation's largest utility companies alleging their facilities contribute to the "public nuisance" of global warming and seeking court-imposed emission reductions"

Typical tactic of the Left - When you can't get enough votes, legislate through the Judiciary, from the bench, instead of the electoral and Congressional processes defined by the Constitution.

Sickening.
6.8.2009 4:12pm
Nunzio:
How long could it possibly take to issue an unpublished summary affirmance?
6.8.2009 4:18pm
M N Ralph:

Typical tactic of the Left - When you can't get enough votes, legislate through the Judiciary, from the bench, instead of the electoral and Congressional processes defined by the Constitution.

Sickening.


Now that Democrats are in power, it seems like at least some on the right are re-thinking the whole judicial activism thing.
6.8.2009 4:48pm
Eli Rabett (www):
Pete: Heller/pot/kettle
6.8.2009 5:30pm
BenFranklin (mail):
Eli: Not even close. There is a 2nd amendment to the constitution which was meant to protect the right of the individual to bear arms. There is not an amendment by which the government is required to regulate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to some "ideal" level which no one can define.

Besides, gun rights was a winner politically so your analogy falls down there as well. There were a few enclaves where the ruling class outlawed guns to keep them out of the hands of people who were mostly minorities but being pro gun control was the political kiss of death for quite a while before Heller.
6.8.2009 7:02pm
Fub:
Kazinski at 6.8.2009 1:38pm wins the thread. First Post too. Very impressive showing.
6.8.2009 8:39pm
Fedya (www):
Where do we turn to get the AGs declared a public nuisance?
6.8.2009 9:30pm
markm (mail):
How do I get standing to sue Congress for its hot air emissions?
6.9.2009 6:40am
martinned (mail) (www):

Not even close. There is a 2nd amendment to the constitution which was meant to protect the right of the individual to bear arms. There is not an amendment by which the government is required to regulate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to some "ideal" level which no one can define.

In other words, Heller was not judicial activism because it was right.
6.9.2009 7:58am
Pyrrho:
So Pete, I take it you are in favor of getting rid of the public nuisance doctrine altogether? And negligence, as well? I mean, these are all forms of getting redress from the judiciary rather than availing yourself to the political process.
6.9.2009 11:08am
NickM (mail) (www):
If she were a California state judge (on any level of court there), she would have been serving without pay for most of this time. Under the California Constitution, if a case is not decided within 90 days of submission, the judge does not receive pay until it is decided.

That would be an interesting amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Nick
6.9.2009 4:03pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.