<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: EPA must consider global warming again</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/epa-must-consider-global-warming-again/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/epa-must-consider-global-warming-again/</link>
	<description>The Supreme Court of the United States blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: vanmojo</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/epa-must-consider-global-warming-again/comment-page-1/#comment-11062</link>
		<dc:creator>vanmojo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2007 01:08:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/epa-must-consider-global-warming-again/#comment-11062</guid>
		<description>Is it my imagination, or are many of the opponents of this ruling the same gang that bellowed so loudly for &lt;i&gt;NRDC v. Chevron&lt;/i&gt; in 1984, saying not only that did the executive branch have the power to regulate, but that courts must show them deference in their regulation in the absence of clear legislative intent or direction.

mojo sends
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is it my imagination, or are many of the opponents of this ruling the same gang that bellowed so loudly for <i>NRDC v. Chevron</i> in 1984, saying not only that did the executive branch have the power to regulate, but that courts must show them deference in their regulation in the absence of clear legislative intent or direction.</p>
<p>mojo sends</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Glenn Maltais</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/epa-must-consider-global-warming-again/comment-page-1/#comment-11061</link>
		<dc:creator>Glenn Maltais</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/epa-must-consider-global-warming-again/#comment-11061</guid>
		<description>This is certainly a step in the right direction.

However, With world oil production nearing peak capacity; energy demand and climate-change increasing unabated, man’s law of supply and demand, coupled with nature’s law of cause and effect, will inevitably bring about change.

The only question is...for better or worse? Will we as a nation have the will to act now; not talk, not posture or politic, but to act out of conscience endeavor to usher in a new alternative energy era?

Or through indifference will we be acted upon by the environmental, economic and national security threats now gathering on the horizon?

WWW.ENERGIZENOW.US

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is certainly a step in the right direction.</p>
<p>However, With world oil production nearing peak capacity; energy demand and climate-change increasing unabated, man’s law of supply and demand, coupled with nature’s law of cause and effect, will inevitably bring about change.</p>
<p>The only question is&#8230;for better or worse? Will we as a nation have the will to act now; not talk, not posture or politic, but to act out of conscience endeavor to usher in a new alternative energy era?</p>
<p>Or through indifference will we be acted upon by the environmental, economic and national security threats now gathering on the horizon?</p>
<p><a href="http://WWW.ENERGIZENOW.US" rel="nofollow">http://WWW.ENERGIZENOW.US</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.401 seconds -->
