Supremes rule against Bush
#21
04-04-2007, 03:37 PM
Re: Supremes rule against Bush
lars-ss: Your approach to the idea of carbon dioxide as a pollutant is far too simplistic. As I already pointed out, just because something is 'natural' (however you define that) does not mean it can't pollute. The fact that there are substantial sources of it that we cannot cut back does not have anything to do with the substantial sources that we can cut back. Many things that are excellent, even critical, in moderation become poisonous, dangerous, or otherwise harmful when there is an excess of them. Carbon dioxide is one of those things, and none of the vituperative and thoughtless tautologies you have listed can change the fact that burning fossil fuels that emit so much CO2 is causing a real, urgent problem. Taking the political tack, the objection to this headline is a little bit ignorant. The Supreme Court did, actually, literally, rule against Bush. The executive branch is, in many ways, synonymous with Bush- that's why it's called the Bush Administration, and the main named defendant in the suit was the Environmental Protection Agency, whose leaders are all Bush appointees and whose policies all come directly from him, since they act under his authority. There's no EPA in the Constitution- its existence stems from the powers of the President. Saying that the Court ruled against Bush is not partisan and it is not 'liberal media bias.' It's a fact.
But unless I missed something, President Bush never himself in any executive order nor verbally nor in a memo told the EPA "you may not regulate CO2."
So the fact that the Supreme Court in a case named MASSACHUSETTS vs THE EPA (notice that was not Mass. vs BUSH) interpreted the wording of a congressional edict a little bit different than the EPA themselves does not mean anyone ruled against BUSH in any way.
And it was, after all a 5-4 ruling against the EPA. Had it been 9-0, then I would accept "rebuke" or "slammed" the EPA as a good description.
To say that would mean that when ANY governmental organization under the Executive branch who ever had a case won against them, the headline should be "court rules against Bush." That would be as silly as this headline.
Here is a link to the complete ruling if anyone wants to bore themselves through it:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/05-1120.pdf
Nowhere in the ruling did I see anything that said "we hereby rule against Bush." That's an odd way to describe the result of a ruling in a state versus the EPA case.
#22
04-04-2007, 03:57 PM
Re: Supremes rule against Bush
Well, does it make a difference whether the headline reads, . . .against Bush. Or . . . against Bush's EPA? Or Bush's EPA Policy on CO2?
Bush appointed all those administrators. They serve at his pleasure. They carry out his policy (remember, several resignations of scientist have already occured). I think it is disingenuous to take the position the the decision which was against the EPA was not, by extension - or association also against Bush.
From today's LA Times: Congress vs Bush on a new Front: emissions
"President Bush, while acknowledging (emphasis mine) Tuesday the he took 'very seriously' the Supreme Court's ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate greenhouse gas. . ."
"Bush said (emphasis mine) that any regulatory program. . ."
Bush appointed all those administrators. They serve at his pleasure. They carry out his policy (remember, several resignations of scientist have already occured). I think it is disingenuous to take the position the the decision which was against the EPA was not, by extension - or association also against Bush.
From today's LA Times: Congress vs Bush on a new Front: emissions
"President Bush, while acknowledging (emphasis mine) Tuesday the he took 'very seriously' the Supreme Court's ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate greenhouse gas. . ."
"Bush said (emphasis mine) that any regulatory program. . ."
Last edited by centrider; 04-04-2007 at 03:59 PM. Reason: correct spelling
#23
04-05-2007, 07:03 AM
Re: Supremes rule against Bush
It matters not one iota who Bush appointed in the EPA.
What matters is that in this case, it was not a ruling against:
Bush's appointees
Bush's environmental policy
Bush's stance on global warming
It was a case where the State of Massachusetts (and others) sought a different interpretation of the Clean Air Act than the EPA had made themselves.
That's all. That's it. That's the case in a nutshell. The petitioner was asking for a court interpretation of a muddy statement in the Clean Air Act.
It had nothing to do with Bush or his policies.
What matters is that in this case, it was not a ruling against:
Bush's appointees
Bush's environmental policy
Bush's stance on global warming
It was a case where the State of Massachusetts (and others) sought a different interpretation of the Clean Air Act than the EPA had made themselves.
That's all. That's it. That's the case in a nutshell. The petitioner was asking for a court interpretation of a muddy statement in the Clean Air Act.
It had nothing to do with Bush or his policies.
#24
04-05-2007, 07:31 AM
Re: Supremes rule against Bush
Back in 1970, few would have cared about the amount of CO2 emissions - that has changed. An official in the EPA said they were not authorized to regulate CO2 - the court disagreed, stating the EPA mandate was broad enough they were obliged to.
#25
04-05-2007, 10:12 AM
Re: Supremes rule against Bush
I see your point, but both politics and language will undo it. Quite so. It wasn't States vs. Bush.
However, the president is held responsible because the EPA is faceless, and everyone understands who sets the policies. Everyone knows well what Bush's position is on CO2 emissions. His agency (and it is his, as many opposition scientists resigned because of his position) took a position which those states saw as contrary to the spirit, if not the letter of the Clean Air Act.
Ergo, Bush lost. And now with a recess appointment, he will try to hold off the decision which was directed by the Supremes.
However, the president is held responsible because the EPA is faceless, and everyone understands who sets the policies. Everyone knows well what Bush's position is on CO2 emissions. His agency (and it is his, as many opposition scientists resigned because of his position) took a position which those states saw as contrary to the spirit, if not the letter of the Clean Air Act.
Ergo, Bush lost. And now with a recess appointment, he will try to hold off the decision which was directed by the Supremes.
Thread
Topic Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Curated Content Editor
Journalism & The Media
0
02-11-2013 01:10 PM
