And here is the text of the actual Supreme Court decision: Text of Massachusetts vs. EPA
It is reading things like this that confirms my belief in the absolute genius of the basic structure of the American political system. I honestly do not know how well the balance of powers between Executive, Legislative, and Judicial works in other countries. I somehow suspect that even in Western Europe, one of the 3 functions is able to supersede the others (somehow I suspect it is the legislative in Europe but I really don't know much of the reality of it). I am confident that the American check and balance system, invented almost 220 years ago and gradually honed over time, is the most dynamic and ultimately fair system that is currently, or ever has been in, existence.
A couple excerpts from the decision that I liked:
Given EPA’s failure to dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and globalwarming, its refusal to regulate such emissions, at a minimum, “contributes” to Massachusetts’ injuries. EPA overstates its case in arguing that its decision not to regulate contributes so insignificantly to petitioners’ injuries... that there is no realistic possibility that the relief sought would mitigate global climate change and remedy petitioners’ injuries, especially since predicted increases in emissions from China, India, and other developing nations will likely offset any marginal domestic decrease EPA regulation could bring about. Agencies, like legislatures,do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell swoop, but instead whittle away over time, refining their approach as circumstances change and they develop a more nuanced understanding of how best to proceed. That a first step might be tentative does not by itself negate federal-court jurisdiction. And reducing domestic automobile emissions is hardly tentative. Leaving aside the other greenhouse gases, the record indicates that the U. S. transportation sector emits an enormous quantity of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Pp. 20–21.