More Gas in the Wind

So I'm reading my standard fare this morning, and what does The Coffespy have?

In a puckish footnote in his dissent, Justice Scalia replies: "It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an 'air pollutant.' This reading of the statute defies common sense."

This wonderful bit came to Coffespy via Real Clear Politics. Before I get to this article, I've got to say I'm an even bigger fan of Justice Scalia since we both seem to be fond of fart jokes, though I confess I wasn't expecting to see it in a Supreme Court dissenting opinion! I'm only moderately embarrassed to admit that when I got home after work, I immediately opened up the Scalia opinion and began scouring the footnotes for some other jewels. <sigh> that was the sole fart joke. I'll be paying much closer attention to footnotes… at least in Scalia's opinions. Usually, it's a dreadful list of other cases that aren't worth the gas they produce <groan here>

Regardless of how one feels about global warming, one should at least be concerned about how and why this case was decided in this fashion. My previous post focused on the nonsensical notion that the plaintiffs had standing, and the absurdity of the court believing it had any business whatsoever inventing legislation because existing law did not suit their needs. However, the more serious implications of the case are highlighted in the Real Clear Politics article mentioned earlier.

Robert Tracinski titles his article "Guilty Until Proven Innocent," and that is an observation that I missed in this case. Moreover, Tracinski forces us to realize that:

This is one of the most sweeping and intrusive demands for government controls that I can recall. But the court is establishing a mechanism by which all of this can be imposed without legislation--sidestepping the need to convince the American people and secure their consent (emphasis added).

That, by itself is alarming, but the next few paragraphs hammer the important point home – that we are indeed guilty until proven innocent in some insane environmentalist nirvana – without representation, without a voice, and without the single most important protector of the people's voice and rights… the highest court in the land.

Tracinski's article is worth the read… talk it up, hash it out, make people angry.