Court Rejects Clean Air Rules
EPA Refuses to Regulate Greenhouse Gases
I'm not an environmental scientist or a lawyer, so I can't speak intelligently in any great depth about these stories. I can guess, however, that the conservative, pro-business Supreme Court we have now is unlikely the overturn the DC Court of Appeals' decision. And I can guess that the EPA decision covered in the second story had little to do with rigorous scientific analysis by the non-political appointees in the EPA.
I make sure to read stories like these when I find myself upset and demoralized by Obama's various policy shifts. There's no danger I'll vote for John McCain, to be sure, but it would be nice to have a little energy and excitement about my candidate come November. And it's these behind-the-scenes issues, appointees to regulatory agencies, appeals court nominees, that can really define a president's legacy.
The last 28 years have seen 20 years of Republican presidential control. That's 20 years worth of conservative court nominees, 20 years worth of regulatory agents who don't like to, you know, regulate business and 20 years worth of entrenched power. Eight years of an Obama administration would be a nice start in seeding Washington with regulators who regulate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.png)
Posts
1 comment:
I think the DC Court of Appeals decision says more about the court's impatience and disgust with how the EPA's interpretations and how it has gone about trying to "regulate" the environment than it does about the EPA's ability to regulate. Plus, this is easily fixable. Congress can rewrite the relevant statutes to make sure the EPA has the power to regulate air pollution.
Post a Comment