I’ve become of the opinion that lawyer-legislators, or legal legislative aides, may purposefully write laws in this way so as to ensure later litigation. That, in turn, ensures their income stream.

I see lawyer legislators as operating under a serious conflict of interest. Laws that are purposefully written poorly are make-work for lawyers.

Justice Stevens. 2007. MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. April 2. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf

Page 26 (Opinion): The statutory text forecloses EPA’s reading. The Clean Air Act’s sweeping definition of “air pollutant” includes “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air . . . .” §7602(g) (emphasis added).

On its face, the definition embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use of the word “any.”[25] Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt “physical [and] chemical . . . substance[s] which [are] emitted into . . . the ambient air.” The statute is unambiguous.

And:

SCALIA, J. (Dissenting, Page 10 footnote 2): Not only is EPA’s interpretation reasonable, it is far more plausible than the Court’s alternative. As the Court correctly points out, “all airborne compounds of whatever stripe,” ante, at 26, would qualify as “physical, chemical, . . . substance[s] or matter which [are] emitted into or otherwise ente[r] the ambient air,” 42 U. S. C. §7602(g). It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an “air pollutant.” This reading of the statute defies common sense.

The Endangered Species act is similar. It protects small fish and subspecies of owl. Congress ignores a characteristic of bureaucracies: expand.

Parkinson, Cyril Northcote. 1993. Parkinson’s Law. Buccaneer Books, February.
Peter, Laurence J., and Raymond Hull. 2009. The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong. 1st ed. HarperBusiness, April 1.

Kazman, Sam. Letter to Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Re: Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171. June 23. http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf

Email # 3: March 17 email from Mr. McGartland to Mr. Carlin, stating that he will not forward Mr. Carlin’s study.

“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.
…. I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

See also:
Barton, Joe. 2009. 07/16/2009 Followup Letter to EPA on Carlin Report. July 16. http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Followup_Letter_to_EPA_on_Carlin_Report.pdf

I noticed in the OIG report on page 38 last paragraph.

“In response to allegations that CRU scientists acted inappropriately in handling their data and improperly influenced the process of advising policymakers, the University of East Anglia commissioned two studies. An April 2010 study, chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh, examined the integrity of the research published by CRU. A July 2010 study, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, examined the conduct of the CRU scientists. In general, the studies found that there was no deliberative scientific malpractice at CRU, and that there was no evidence of CRU scientists’ behavior that would undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.”

They generally accepted the report conclusions at face value, unaware of any controversy concerning them. Apparently no CA readers among them.