The good news is that Justice Scalia was in the minority and that his views did not prevail that time. But that could change if the next President were to add more like-minded Justices to the Supreme Court.

It's not only citizen enforcement suits authorized by Congress that draw Justice Scalia's anger. He also opposes efforts to enact uniform national laws to address nationwide problems. Air and water pollution respect no borders. People in downstream states have no ability to protect themselves from upstream pollution without strong federal protective laws. But, for the first time in generations, federal courts and the Supreme Court in particular are on the brink of turning the clock back to a time when the citizenry--including industries--was at the mercy of a crazy quilt of inconsistent and often grossly inadequate state laws.

Additionally, this year the Supreme Court faces the question whether a long-dead legal doctrine will prevent Congress from protecting the nation from air pollution. And it is widely anticipated that Justice Scalia will side with the 19th century, preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from applying scientific data to tackle our complex air pollution problems. Last year, a lower federal court struck down new, greatly improved soot and smog standards. Will the Supreme Court allow us to keep our air clean? While the question hangs in the air, pollution burns the lungs of people suffering from asthma.

The environment will suffer profoundly if the next President packs the Supreme Court with members who share Justice Scalia's disdain for the legal means Americans have used to clean up our air and water. While the next President will only be in office four to eight years, his legacy on the Supreme Court could harm our environment and our communities for more than a generation.

Robert Cox is president of the Sierra Club and professor of communication studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.