If Yogi Berra made comments on serious matters, he’d probably say to this “when you politicize everything, everything is politics”:

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a case that will determine whether the Bush administration must regulate greenhouse gases, which could have broad consequences for California’s landmark law reining in vehicle emissions to fight global warming.

The case, brought by California, 11 other states and by environmental groups, is being heralded by legal experts as one of the most important environmental issues to be heard by the high court in years. The justices’ decision could touch virtually every U.S. industry, from automobile makers and oil companies to airlines and electricity producers.

“This could give us the answer to how the justices feel about one of the most important environmental issues of the future,” said Robert Percival, director of the University of Maryland environmental law program. (emphasis mine)

Eh, at least they admit that this’ll be decided not on such apparently decrepit questions such as “is the authority sought by the complainants compatible with the powers laid out in the Constitution” but on whether or not at least five of the justices think global warming is a myth made up by america-hating hippies. Sad, because that’s not the issue at all. Assuming for sake of arguement that this type of issue belongs within their domain (which I obviously disagree with), one could just as easily feel that global warming is fact & the feds don’t have this authority as they could think they have that authority desite them personally finding it still an open question.
So, what result would I be rooting for? To be honest, I dismiss the entire concept being discussed (expansion of government authority) on either end, so put me down as “rationally uncaring”. Arbitrary rules about X amount of this or Y of that don’t actually do anything about the environment, because it’s an issue of externalities. The problem isn’t one where over a certain amount is unambiguously bad & under is unambiguously fine, it’s about making the cost/benefit equation reflect the costs being imposed on people other than the ones creating the pollution.

That said, California’s claim in this baffles me: if they already have tighter controls, then what exactly do they want the federal government to do? “States rights”, go google it Cali…