Marbury vs Madison established the concept of judicial review.

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is…If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution… the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.” Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803

Their job is to rule on the case before them and to determine if it is, or is not Constitutional. By doing this they shape the law of the land. For years the SCOTUS held that segregation laws, providing that conditions were separate but equal, were not in violation of the Constitution. Years later they reversed their decision and held that separate but equal was not Constitutional, forcing states to change their laws. The regulation of marriage is not an enumerated power of the federal government, however in 1967 the Court ruled that laws forbidding interracial marriage were unconstitutional, and more recently they ruled that laws against same sex marriage were as well. As a result of their rulings in both examples, states had to change their laws to comply, thus making the Court the final authority as to the law. This is why I mentioned the political circus surrounding the confirmation process. Politicians want to ensure that people are selected who will most likely interpret vague or poorly written laws in their favor. An example of this would be those who want judges to use the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment to rule against private ownership of guns, or those who want judges to rule against abortion because the Constitutional rights of the child are being ignored.

 

Actually judicial review existed well before that case. And judicial review is not the same thing as "interpreting" the Constitution. The only appropriate methodology is original understanding, what did the words mean to the people who wrote them when they wrote them down?

 

Of course climate change exists, but there is no conclusive proof or even scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to it in any significant or measurable amount.

 

You’re right about original understanding, but the justices are tasked with determining what that is. That is where they try to interpret, or decide if you like that word better, what the original text means as it applies to the case before them. This is why decisions often go down conservative or liberal lines. Each side interprets the text differently when splitting legal hairs on a case. They are not trying to shape the law to fit an agenda, their decisions are based on how they think the case meets the letter and intent of the Constitution, each with a different view as to what that is. Once they rule, that case often has a direct impact on the law.

 

And that is their error. There is no "interpretation" needed.

 

This is factually incorrect. To believe that at this point is simple willful ignorance. It's not a question of who you believe, or whether there's good science on both sides, it's a question of either accepting the science or rejecting it. Here's some light reading:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

I'd love to see a comprehensive refutation of that.

 

I feel the same way. I was a big fan of Justice Scalia and his adherence to originalism, however there are nine on the bench and they don’t all think the way that he did. The court as a whole does determine what cases are constitutional based on what they think that the various clauses of our Constitution mean, either from an originalism or living Constitution view. From those decisions current laws are changed, and future laws are measured using that decision as precedent. If the founders could see the how the Constitution has evolved from what they wrote, they’d be horrified.

Anyway, I don’t know how a thread on environmental issues drifted into the Constitution and the Supreme Court, but it was enjoyable. I can’t believe that people didn’t go all red/blue and get the thread locked. It was fun, but I guess we should hang this up and let others talk about the original intent of this thread.

 

This is true, but there is at least a vaguely reasonable suspicion, correlation is not always causation but it certainly hints at it.

The reality is...

People think it's real, so we have to react accordingly. The trick is to do it without destroying the economy (and global stability) in the process.

Hard-core eco freaks (greta, AOC) don't seem to get that if everyone is struggling to find work, food, and housing carbon will be the very last thing on their minds.

The first world needs to show the third world that there's a sustainable path to a better economy... otherwise they'll just keep slashing and burning as usual.

Personally I have trouble taking any of them seriously as long as nuclear is off the table. Fission is perfectly safe and viable as implemented with modern technology. The waste is a temporary thing, we only need fission until fusion is available (5-50 years realistically).

Focus on fusion instead of half-arsed bandaids like wind and solar... why are none of the carbon nazis pushing for THAT?

 

That's a ridiculously easy answer, they don't actually care about the environment. Wind and solar lead to energy rationing done by central planning.

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority