The instant I read that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor will be retiring I began mentally composing a post explaining why this could be such dire news for American environmental law. The keystone portion of my post would be a list of important environmental rulings by the Supreme Court in recent years. After emphasizing the unbelievable import of the decision now facing George W. Bush and his cohort, I would offer suggestions for the steps that readers can take to possibly have some small influence on whether the nominee is an ultraconservative, anti-government and anti-environment hack, or possibly a consensus nominee. Thank the gods that BushGreenwatch, Daily Kos, and the Gristmill have already done all of these things for me. Because it’s so important that you read each of these posts I’m quoting whole sections from them in the extended entry.

Before the fold though, I want to add one more thing that I haven’t seen addressed yet this morning – the three blogs I mention above do an amazing job of talking about the past and the present, but humor me for a second while I talk about the future. Specifically I’d like to talk about the future of the commerce clause:

I’ll spare you the technical details since I’ve talked about them before. Instead I’ll boil it down to two points:

1. Practically all environmental legislation relies on the commerce clause to be considered constitutional.

2. Individuals, and especially judges, who agree ideologically with the Bush administration tend to feel that the application of the commerce clause has historically been too broad.

A single ruling from the high Court suggesting that the application of the commerce clause to any environmental legilation is unconstitutional could have the fallout effect of dismantling other such laws as the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. None of these laws are perfect, being crafted by politicians in a gauntlet of interest groups, concessions, favors, and compromise as they are, but each of them represents an essential piece of federal environmental protection in areas that the free market has failed to properly value or defend.

From BushGreenwatch:

The Supreme Court has played a critical role in shaping many regulations, and in the past five years alone it has ruled on:

• the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to promulgate national ambient air quality standards (Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 2001);

• EPA's authority to prevent state agencies from issuing unreasonable Clean Air Act permits (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004);
• the extent of federal jurisdiction to protect water and wetlands (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [SWANCC], 2001);
• the scope of parties' liability under the Superfund hazardous waste cleanup law (Cooper Industries v. Aviall Services, 2004);
• the Department of Interior's obligation to protect wilderness and potential wilderness areas (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton, 2004);
• environmental review of agency actions taken under international free-trade agreements (Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 2004);
• the scope of pesticide manufacturers' common-law liability for damage resulting from use of their products (Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, 2005);
• whether and when state and local agencies' land-use regulations run afoul of the Fifth Amendment "takings" clause and its "just compensation" requirement (Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2002); and
• preemption of state and local governments' ability to regulate vehicle emissions (Engine Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2004).

From DavidNYC at Daily Kos:

• If you have a cell phone, sign up for People at the American Way's Mass Immediate Response site. This way, you'll be able to receive text message action items instantly as events break. (If you signed up during the nuclear option fight, you'll need to re-sign up.)

• Also sign up with the Save the Court, another PFAW website devoted specifically to this issue.
• Recruit friends and family members to the cause.
• Write to the President, telling him he should choose a consensus candidate to replace O'Connor.
• Contact your Senators to tell them the same thing.

From Emily Gertz at the Gristmill:

Here's my radical idea: What about taking all -- okay, some -- of the activist ire that is about to be aimed at opposing President Bush's as-yet-unnamed nominee, and instead direct it into organizing in local communities? The current political situation took decades to come into being; it won't be solved by focusing every drop of energy at the very top. Rebuilding long-term relationships and relevance at the political, environmental, educational, media, and economic grassroots is what will ultimately create a sustainable future for the U.S.

Update - more from Daily Kos:

• Sign MoveOn's "Protect Our Rights" petition.

• Contact members of the media and tell them you think Bush should nominate a consensus candidate. PLEASE be polite, be brief (200 words or less), and don't do copy-and-paste jobs - put things in your own words.
• Stop by Hunter's thread and make suggestions for potential nominees.