the logic of science and the logic of law

[Jessica Silbey]

To point to only a few evidentiary proffers, all at Slip Op. at 18 (and
there are more):

 

The uncontested evidence before the courts in the matter described the
injury and causation as "well-recognized" (if not only specific to
Massachusetts but to other states), that there was a "strong consensus"
among the scientific community (mea culpa for saying "overwhelming" in a
previous email) and the National Research Council's report agreed. The EPA
itself described the NRC's findings as "objective and independent assessment
of relevant science." 

 

________________________________

Jessica Silbey

Assistant Professor of Law

Suffolk University Law School

120 Tremont Street

Boston, MA 02108

617-305-6270 (office)

617-305-3079 (fax)

jsilbey at suffolk.edu

ssrn.com/author=380489

 

 

  _____  

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 2:03 PM
To: Con Law Prof list
Subject: RE: the logic of science and the logic of law

 

    Is there indeed overwhelming scientific consensus that global warning is
not just threatening to cause serious harm, but has actually caused the
swallowing of Massachusetts' coastal land, or some other "actual or
imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical" and "real and immediate" cause?
It may well be that there is, but I was hoping someone could point it out.

 

    Eugene

 

  _____  

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Silbey
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:40 AM
To: 'Con Law Prof list'
Subject: the logic of science and the logic of law

I wonder what people make, if anything, of the fact that the four justices
who dissented in Massachusetts v. EPA, because they disagreed with
overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is causing sufficient
harm to provide the plaintiffs with standing, are the same four justices
(plus Kennedy) who voted in Carhart II to disregard national medical
consensus that intact D&Es are necessary procedures for some pregnant women?
Has there been any coverage on this parallel?

 

Jessica

 

________________________________

Jessica Silbey

Assistant Professor of Law

Suffolk University Law School

120 Tremont Street

Boston, MA 02108

617-305-6270 (office)

617-305-3079 (fax)

jsilbey at suffolk.edu

ssrn.com/author=380489

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20070423/5e872c90/attachment.html