If you believe that life's reward is an eternal place in heaven, why would you care about this planet? Bushco treats environmental science with even more disdain than normal science, which is shocking but true.

The fact is that until we get that man out of office the EPA will be nothing more than a polluter's lap dog on this issue.

Getting a public official to be ruled in contempt is extremely difficult. Merely because there is a court ruling that the official ignores is not enough. The official can claim discretionary power to implement the decision as she/he sees fit, or argue budgetary restrictions, or, as Johnson seems to be doing, argue for a different understanding of the decision.
You have to take the official to court directly, seeking either mandate or injunction (formal orders to act) in specific ways to carry out the decision. Then, the official has to come back to court and explain how she/he carried out that order or, if not, why not. Or, the plaintiff can drag the official back to court on a contempt citation.
Of course, at each step, the recalcitrant official can appeal, delay, obfuscate, etc. And that is exactly what Bush's folks will do until they are kicked out of office.
So. . . .let's go to work on that, eh?

This was the last left website on my bookmarks and it is now deleted because your anti Hillary bias is to much for this Edwards supporter. Your headlines read like a true OPM headline should, my hope is you all are happy at running off half your audience, half your activists, half your supporters. At least now there will be no dissent here in Obama land. Enjoy.

PS: I think the Headline should be : Instead of "What Ferraro Might Say" it should be " What a journalist might say". Of course you will not see one here, a true journalist that is .This place has turned into another Huffington " anti Hillary " Post. Obama drival all the time, nothing to outlandish to support Obama.

Maybe I'm missing something...
1. Court says EPA must issue guidelines.
2. Johnson ignores Court's directive.
3. Environmental groups sue to enforce Courts directive.
4. In which case Johnson either a) Ignores THAT Court order or b) Overrules his scientific staff and promulgates a ruling entirely favorable to industry.

Can't somebody IMPEACH that assh*le, NOW!?

my understanding:

since the supreme court only narrowly granted standing to massachusetts in the the original decision, i don't think the environmental groups can do much of anything without massachusetts.

the 5-4 decision in mass v epa didn't require epa to issue regulations. more to the issue at hand, it didn't establish any timetable for epa to issue regulations (or provide reasonable explanation for declining to to do so if it chose not to issue regulations).

while mass v epa found that epa's stated reasons for declining to issue regulations was arbitrary and capricious, whether or not epa's foot-dragging since the decision similarly violates the law would be a new question.

if this were to go back to the courts, the DC court of appeals could find that epa's foot-dragging was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise in violation of the law (notably, the clean air act's provisions for rulemaking) then the court could order as a remedy some sort of timeline for action.

also: this isn't about 'stricter greenhouse gas rules'...

this is about regulations for greenhouse gas emissions for new motor vehicles. no such regulations currently exist.

Eh, Facilitatrix! Glad you finally said "the movie," as the whole Ness story is a self-agrandizing fabrication and you can look that up. Totally agree on the fan club issue:

Mare Nostrum [heart] Waxman!