The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday kicked off its confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who is President Barack Obama’s choice to replace retiring Justice David Souter.

Sotomayor’s environmental record is somewhat limited, and environmental issues are not expected to be a major part of the Judiciary Committee’s weeklong proceedings. Nevertheless, environmental groups have come out strongly in favor of Sotomayor’s confirmation.

Judging from the text of a letter [pdf] signed by 60 national, regional, state and local environmental groups, and delivered last week to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and Ranking Member Jeff Sessions, many environmentalists are supporting Sotomayor not because she is pro-environment, but because they believe she is refreshingly impartial.

“Judge Sotomayor’s record evinces no clear bias in favor of or against environmental claims,” the letter says. “Instead, it reflects intellectual rigor, meticulous preparation, and fairness. Her record demonstrates a consistently balanced and thoughtful review of complex legal issues. She has interpreted and applied the laws as Congress intended and safeguarded constitutional rights.”

At a time when the Supreme Court has been drifting farther and farther to the right, and making far too many rulings that favor business expediency over sustainability, “intellectual rigor, meticulous preparation, and fairness” sounds like the right approach to many of the difficult environmental questions our nation is struggling to answer.

Also Read:

• Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor and the Environment
• Supreme Court Ends Worst Term Ever for Environmental Issues
• Racist and Sexist Coverage of Sotomayor Precedes Her Confirmation Hearings

The U.S. Supreme Court heard five major environmental law cases in the term that ended last week and the environment lost every time, making 2008-2009 the worst term on record for environmental issues. Between October and June, the Court’s decisions:

• allowed the U.S. Navy to continue military exercises using sonar that threatens whales, according to many scientists and environmental groups;
• limited the liability of companies that are partially responsible for toxic spills;
• made it harder to challenge Forest Service regulations;
• cleared the way for mining waste to be dumped into an Alaskan lake; and
• enabled the EPA to use a faulty cost-benefit analysis process to weigh technology implementations or upgrades against adverse environmental impacts.

Business groups were generally pleased with the rulings while environmental groups were disappointed or, in some cases, outraged. Beyond the issues involved in these particular cases, however, is the larger question of whether the outcome of these five cases signals a shift in the legal perspective of the Supreme Court that may continue to jeopardize the environment.

Under the leadership of Chief Justice Roberts, who joined the Court in 2005, the Supreme Court has become increasingly conservative. And the addition of Justice Samuel Alito, who replaced Sandra O’Connor in 2006, has contributed to that trend. If Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed by the Senate, it will probably do little to change the Court’s approach to environmental cases. Sotomayor is generally expected to take positions on environmental law cases that would not differ significantly from those of retiring Justice David Souter, whom she would replace.

With Congress and many state legislatures poised to pass a number of historic environmental laws—the kind that are almost sure to invite legal challenges—the question is whether the Supreme Court will ultimately advance or impede progress on key environmental issues.

Planning to take in one of those great fireworks displays on the Fourth of July? Be careful. Those fireworks may leave you and your family with more than a patriotic feeling.

Fireworks pollution litters the ground, contaminates water supplies, and rains down chemicals and heavy metals that contribute to a wide range of serious health problems. Perchlorate, which can interfere with thyroid function and metabolism, and may be detrimental to mental development in fetuses and young children, is one of the chemicals produced by the rockets' red glare.

Most researchers say a single fireworks display probably won't do you and your family serious harm, despite the toxins and heavy metals it produces--although the risks are higher for babies and unborn children--but repeated or long-term exposure can be a real problem for people who work around pyrotechnics.

Maybe it's time for a change in the way we celebrate our independence.
_{Photo by Getty Images}

About two weeks after refusing to disclose the location of 44 “high hazard potential” coal ash storage sites in the name of national security, the Obama administration has reversed course and published a list of the toxic sites for the sake of public safety.

Read more...