Reaction to Supreme Court Ruling Shows How Polarized We Are

The Supreme Court issued its ruling on a case concerning the EPA extending it regulatory authority. The case concerned how the EPA extended its rules to new construction. The Court let stand most of the EPA's authority and agreed with scientists that greenhouse gases are pollution, but said the EPA had gone too far.

So, what kind of headlines did it make?

From Fox News (with a heavy denier bent):

Supreme Court limits EPA global warming rules

The Supreme Court delivered a setback to the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday, placing limits on the sole Obama administration program already in place to deal with power plant and factory emissions of gases blamed for global warming.

The decision does not affect recent and highly controversial EPA proposals to set the first-ever national standards for new and existing power plants. One recent proposal would aim for a 30 percent emissions reduction by 2030.

Rather, at issue was a requirement that companies expanding industrial facilities or building new ones that would increase overall pollution must evaluate ways to reduce carbon emissions. The justices said Monday that the EPA lacks authority in some cases to force companies to do so.

While from the more liberal CNN:

Court slows EPA on emissions, but largely backed its rules

The Supreme Court on Monday took away some of the government's power to tighten emission standards, but preserved the majority of its authority under federal law to regulate greenhouse gases.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices affirmed conclusions by much of the scientific community that greenhouse gases blamed for global warming are pollutants.

Quite a subtle difference. One stated the EPA was set-back, the other says the EPA was supported. The interesting thing is that both articles are correct.

And, that illustrates just how polarized we've become on the issue of global warming.