Talk:Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Holding

The New York Times reports that the case was decided 5-4 in favor of Massachusetts. I haven't been able to find any more information Hashbrowncipher 15:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering about what it says in the "Holding" section of the infobox template: "Greenhouse gases are air pollutants, and the EPA may regulate their emission." Shouldn't it say that the EPA must rgulate their emissions? That is what I understood from the holding, but may be mistaken. Anyone care to elaborate/explain?
Benjo 08:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No. The Court did not require EPA to regulate greenhouse gases; they merely determined that greenhouse gases were within EPA's regulatory power, and that EPA must base its decision on whether to regulate on a strict reading of the text of the statute. 121a0012 (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Wouldn't it be Massachusetts, et al. ...? 68.39.174.238 21:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is acceptable usage to drop all but the first party on each side and modifiers such as ‘et al.’ See The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (Columbia Law Review Ass’n et. al. eds., 17th ed. 2000). Additionally, I seem to recall it is good Wikipedia style to give articles the title that reflects what people are most likely to put in a search box when looking up the topic. My guess is that most people will drop the ‘et al.’ Xlation 19:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Details section seems to be written by a pro-industry individual, especially "If the case continues on remand to the lower court, it could end up generating factual hearings of worldwide fame and significance, effectively putting either industrialized society or global warming -- or both -- on trial." ShigityShank 08:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What "very extensive scientific evidence" is supplied? Nothing is mentioned about the EPA's case?

I read the whole article and have been following the Global Warming crisis in detail for years. I find this to be an excellent and perceptive article. Simesa 18:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I am in the majority that believe Global Warming is a crisis, I disagree with the deletions made on 30 November by 152.3.113.211 -- comments? Simesa 07:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EPA scientists revolt

More Than 10,000 EPA Scientists File Mass Petition for Action on Global Warming, November 29, 2006 Simesa 01:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panel discussion

For those editors who are located in the United States, a Georgetown University panel discussion originally broadcast on C-SPAN2 a few hours after the case was argued is scheduled to be rebroadcast on C-SPAN's America and the Courts program Saturday evening. 18.26.0.5 23:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs Desents section added

Basically at a similar level of detail found in the finding section for both of the Desents. Jon 15:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Er.. does it? I can understand a very quick summary of the dissenting opinions, but... they were dissenting opinions. Not sure why they should receive the "same level of detail" as the actual opinion the court handed down... —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Currently the ruling section is only a few sentences. What I'm saying is that the section on desents shouldn't be several paragraphs (if the ruling section stays about the same size). Jon 15:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I have restructured this article to bring it's structure more into line with the other us supreme court decisions. Jon 14:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impact section cut

"The decision makes it significantly more likely that the EPA will approve California's and 11 other states' programs to limit tailpipe emissions, beginning with the 2009 model year." I've cut this as unsourced speculation. In addition, last night on C-SPAN2 (at a Senate Commitee hearing) one the lawyers was saying under this decision they don't have to approve the wavier. (In fact, he cited this decision as making it clear that CA would need a wavier if they wish to implement green house standards because it's now clear its covered by the Clean Air Act.) Jon 18:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a source for this at the time, but I'm not inclined to go back and look it up. Simesa 18:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section Stub tags

I've removed the ones under the decision and Robert's length since they now look about the right length. Actually the main thing that can be improved about this article is that the history section is too verbose and needs summarized. Jon 21:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Description of the majority opinion

The article's description of the majority opinion seems to give rather short shrift to the issues raised elsewhere in the article. It should at least summarize the majority's reasoning on standing and on permissible reasons for EPA to decide not to regulate, rather than leaving the court's reasoning defined solely in the negative, to be deduced from the descriptions of the dissents. 121a0012 (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)