But that may be what’s happening.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on a case about global warming, looking at the question of whether there should be regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from new cars.
Justice Scalia apparently is OK with making a leap of faith when it comes to religion, but not for science or common sense. According to the report in the Washington Post:
“At one point [during the arguments, Scalia] acknowledged the role of carbon dioxide as a pollutant in the air but wondered about it being a pollutant in the ‘stratosphere.’
‘Respectfully, Your Honor, it is not the stratosphere. It’s the troposphere,’ said [the attorney arguing against the government's position].
‘Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I’m not a scientist,’ Scalia said to laughter. ‘That’s why I don’t want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth.’ “
Guess that means he hasn’t seen An Inconvenient Truth.
But what does that mean for us when a Supreme Court justice doesn’t want to try to understand concepts like global warming? OK, he’ll probably be gone from the bench by the time the real global warming kicks in, so it’s not an issue for him personally, but he doesn’t care what that means for his grandchildren?
If Scalia can manage to understand arcane legal issues, and if he could manage to give the presidency to George W. Bush, doesn’t he at least owe it to us, and the rest of those on the court, to understand what’s happening to our environment without dismissing it as a joke?
Unfortunately, I think his comments are answer enough.