In April 2007 Supreme Court case v EPA and CO2 tailpipe emissions, no one from Bush admin. presented the science that CO2 doesn't cause global warming. Everyone in court believed in it

.
The April 2007 5-4 Supreme Court case "Massachusetts vs EPA" was supposedly a global warming related decision, but it really wasn't because everyone in court at the time believed in man-caused CO2 terror, per Justice Stevens decision. He states Bush administration participants actually "did not dispute" that human CO2 causes global warming. Massachusetts had sued the Bush administration claiming Massachusetts sea levels were being adversely affected by motor vehicle CO2 emission from American tailpipes:

4/2/2007, "Massachusetts vs EPA"

p.1, from Justice Stevens decision:

(scroll down): "Causation

"EPA does not dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. At a minimum, therefore, EPA’s refusal to regulate such emissions “contributes” to Massachusetts’ injuries."...

==============
.

9/8/2006, Nature.com, also cited Bush admin. personnel belief in CO2 terror:
.

"The EPA doesn't dispute that carbon dioxide is playing a role in climate change, just whether or not it has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases." 
.

=====================
.

14 climate scientists joined the case:

Fourteen climate scientists were among groups and individuals filing Amicus briefs in the 2007 Supreme Court case against the Bush administration. Others:

4/2/2007, "Supreme Court Rejects Bush in Global Warming Debate," ABC News, Jennifer Parker
.

"Eleven states joined Massachusetts in bringing the suit against the EPA, including California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington State, along with numerous other environmental groups and nonprofit organizations. 

Fourteen "friend of the court" briefs were also filed from independent scientists, former EPA administrators, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, electric power companies, state and local governments, and others." 

[Ed. note: Amicus briefs were also filed by Entergy, Calpine, and the US Conference of Mayors per a now disappeared Sierra Club link. Here's a link to Entergy's stock market chart. Entergy price reached a then all time high right after the 4/2/2007 Supreme Court decision was announced. I've just spent over two hours trying to find a current link referencing Entergy and Calpine Amicus briefs in the 2007 Supreme Court case with no luck.]

"Global Warming's Political Rise

The political climate has changed dramatically over the issue of global warming since the court agreed last year to hear the case -- the Supreme Court's first on the subject.

In November of 2006, Democrats took control of Congress and pledged to make global warming a national issue."...

=================
.

Efforts are being made to correct the 2007 decision. Time will tell:
.

12/17/2013, "The EPA is challenged in the Supreme Court over greenhouse gas regulations," WUWT, Anthony Watts

"I have been given the amici curiae brief. The cover reads:"...
.

=======================
.

Romney was a pioneer in CO2 regulation:

10/14/11, "Romney's Bad Advice," Investors Editorial

"On Jan. 1, 2006, Massachusetts became the first state to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants."...
 

=======================
.

Among cases leading up to 2007 Supreme Court case:

8/28/2003, "EPA Denies Petition to Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles." "The petition was filed by the International Center for Technology Assessment and a number of other organizations."...yosemite.epa.gov
.

=================== 

9/13/2005, Appeals Court rules against "Mass. vs. EPA"  

"Petitioners, now joined by intervenor States and local governments, sought review of EPA’s order in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
. ¹⁶ Although each of the three judges on the panel wrote a separate opinion, two judges agreed “that the EPA Administrator properly exercised his discretion under §202(a)(1) in denying the petition for rule making.” 415 F. 3d 50, 58 (2005). The court therefore denied the petition for review." ... 
.

=======================

In 2010 Supreme Court Justice Breyer said the price of oil should be raised "through the roof":

1/20/12, "The High Price Economy," American Spectator, Murray,Bier

"Commerce Secretary John Bryson has championed the cause of higher energy prices since the 1970s, telling Justice Stephen Breyer during a 2010 panel discussion that “energy prices are going to have to go up.” Breyer responded by saying, “We better get away from oil. That’ll help us.… Raise the price of oil! Raise it through the roof, and then people will look for substitutes.”"... 
.

===================== 
.

Comment: The American people weren't represented in the 2007 case. The Bush administration didn't present a case. Everyone in court believed in CO2 terror with Bush people just dancing around issues of whether or not the federal government was the correct vehicle to do something about it. Justice Stevens heavily cited the UN IPCC in his decision showing what a joke the Supreme Court has become. The blame isn't all on the Justices. The Bush administration spent 8 years being either uninterested or on the wrong side of major issues.

No one presented existing science disputing the claim of AGW or even that criminalizing CO2 in the US wouldn't help such a problem if it did exist. Everyone in court just assumed AGW was happening. No scientific proof of this exists even today despite trillions of US taxpayer dollars having been spent over decades trying to find it. The contiguous US is only 1.5% of the planet, so if Massachusetts was sinking the US alone obviously couldn't stop it. At the time of the decision there had been no warming for a decade, US CO2 had dropped and been surpassed by China's. The case by now should be retried for lack of competent counsel.
 

The victory formalized a permanent way to starve the US economy and in particular its lower and middle class population. US politicians are heroes of the $1 billion a day climate industry.



.

.