Laurence Tribe Fights Climate Case

[whell]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/us...bama.html?_r=0

Mr. Tribe, 73, has been retained to represent Peabody Energy, the nation’s largest coal company, in its legal quest to block an Environmental Protection Agency regulation that would cut carbon dioxide emissions from the nation’s coal-fired power plants — the heart of Mr. Obama’s climate change agenda.

Mr. Tribe argues in a brief for the case that in requiring states to cut carbon emissions, thus to change their energy supply from fossil fuels to renewable sources, the E.P.A. is asserting executive power far beyond its lawful authority under the Clean Air Act. At a House hearing last month, Mr. Tribe likened the climate change policies of Mr. Obama to “burning the Constitution.”

It is widely expected that the fight over the E.P.A. regulations will eventually go before the Supreme Court. If it does, Mr. Tribe said that he expects he “may well” play a role in that case — which would be argued before two other former students, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Elena Kagan.

[finnbow]

And daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County
Down by the Green River where Paradise lay
Well, I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking
Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away.

Paradise - John Prine

It seems that Mr. Prine was on to something. In Newsweek's 2011 rankings of the least eco-friendly companies in the US, Peabody Energy was ranked #9 out of the top 500 largest US companies based on their environmental impact.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

At a House hearing last month,[B] Mr. Tribe likened the climate change policies of Mr. Obama to “burning the Constitution.

Tribe gets to be famous again, and get a big payday, and make a brave stand on principle (I'm sure he believes).

Hype for the cameras? Burning the Constitution? Puh-lease. I'm sure he has actual arguments as well, but I dig that you're snapping at the airborne raw meat here....

[Boreas]

I realize that the thread title is taken from the NYT article but this isn't a "climate case". It's an "executive authority case".

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Tribe gets to be famous again, and get a big payday, and make a brave stand on principle (I'm sure he believes).

Hype for the cameras? Burning the Constitution? Puh-lease. I'm sure he has actual arguments as well, but I dig that you're snapping at the airborne raw meat here....

Darn, I thought you were ignoring me.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I realize that the thread title is taken from the NYT article but this isn't a "climate case". It's an "executive authority case".

You're right, which makes this case all that much more interesting.

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Tribe gets to be famous again, and get a big payday, and make a brave stand on principle (I'm sure he believes).

Hype for the cameras? Burning the Constitution? Puh-lease. I'm sure he has actual arguments as well, but I dig that you're snapping at the airborne raw meat here....

Its interesting because this is a liberal standing on principle...against a liberal politician who is far more pragmatic that he is principled. Sets up as rather interesting political theater, as well as a counterpoint to test the limits of what a Prez can get done with a pen and a phone.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Its interesting because this is a liberal standing on principle...against a liberal politician who is far more pragmatic that he is principled. Sets up as rather interesting political theater, as well as a counterpoint to test the limits of what a Prez can get done with a pen and a phone.

Yeh, it's unconscionable that anyone should get in the way of Peabody stripping off mountain-tops and spewing poisons in the air.

[Tom Joad]

Almost Heaven, West Virginia!

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yeh, it's unconscionable that anyone should get in the way of Peabody stripping off mountain-tops and spewing poisons in the air.

...just as unconscionable that the gov't can act unilaterally and absent any constitutional authority to prevent it.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

...just as unconscionable that the gov't can act unilaterally and absent any constitutional authority to prevent it.

That's merely an assertion which remains to be proven and with which many disagree.

Of course, those who disagree aren't degreed experts in Constitutional law like you.