\nJohn Paul Stevens announced<\/a> his long-expected retirement Friday, meaning we can expect another testy\/goofy\/“contentious”
\nconfirmation process in the Senate this summer. Stevens’ retirement means a few
\nother things too:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
1. The court loses an environmental rock star. <\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Stevens, appointed by <\/p>\n His crowning environmental <\/p>\n But Stevens’ influence as <\/p>\n 2. The new justice will be a key vote on critical environmental cases. <\/strong>(You don’t get scoops like that just anywhere!)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The state of Texas has already sued<\/a> the EPA for seeking to limit CO2 emissions. The National Association of <\/p>\n 3. Bad timing for a clean-energy bill, unless it’s already screwed.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The summer confirmation <\/p>\n Then again, time may <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n Bike love in unlikely places—Detroit, Dallas, Abu Dhabi<\/a><\/p>\n Massey coal miner suspected safety problems might prove fatal<\/a><\/p>\n U.N. climate talks in Bonn are off to a rocky start<\/a><\/p>\n
\nGerald Ford in 1975, amassed an impressive record on environmental protection
\ncases. He consistently upheld the ability of federal agencies to regulate
\npollution, as Dan Farber details
\non Legal Planet<\/a>. In the influential Chevron
\nv. NRDC<\/a> (1984), he wrote the majority opinion defending government
\nagencies’ ability to interpret ambiguous legislation, which enabled the EPA to
\nset effective clean-air standards.<\/p>\n
\nachievement was writing the majority opinion in Massachusetts
\nv. EPA<\/a> (2007), which ruled that heat-trapping pollutants endanger
\npublic health and the EPA has an obligation to regulate them. (The Obama EPA is
\nworking on it<\/a>.)<\/p>\n
\nthe court’s longest-serving member went beyond his votes. Wrote The New York Times<\/a>, “beneath his amiable manner lay a canny strategist and
\nmaster tactician, qualities he used to win victories that a simple
\nliberal-conservative head count would appear to be impossible.” Whichever new guy or gal
\nObama chooses won’t be able to immediately replace that.<\/p>\n
\nManufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, and other manufacturing groups
\nsay they will do the same. Any climate action the EPA undertakes will face a
\ntorrent of litigation. Same for any climate\/energy legislation, should it ever pass out of Congress. You can expect at least some of these key cases to eventually be argued in front of the highest court in the land.<\/p>\n
\nprocess adds to an already cramped Senate calendar, which won’t make things
\nany easier for a climate\/energy bill (or financial regulation or immigration reform). And potential energy deal-broker
\nLindsey
\nGraham<\/a> (R-S.C.) sits on the Senate
\nJudiciary Committee<\/a>, so he’ll be spending time on confirmation hearings and dealings.<\/p>\n
\nhave already run out<\/a> for a climate\/energy bill in 2010. Once a bill is finally
\nintroduced (soon, they say<\/a>), it will face five to six weeks of EPA review. That
\nputs things perilously close to midterm election season, when lawmakers become
\neven more skittish about tackling major legislation.<\/p>\n