Posted on 04/09/2007 10:21:43 PM PDT by politicodc
This week, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. The Bush Administration and the EPA argued that they do not have the authority to regulate emissions, and even if they did, this was not the right time to do so. However, the court decided not to defer to the government this time, stirring up several important fundamental issues.
First, what is the role of government in protecting the environment? As Milton Friedman would say, government should ensure that one individual's freedom does not hamper another individual's freedom. In this case, my ability to drive a gas-guzzling SUV that emits tons of pollution should not prohibit you and your kids from running in the park without having an asthma attack.
The second issue is that President Bush is not the only person to be blamed. Where was the Clinton administration when they had the opportunity to put these regulations in place? The then Browner led EPA waited until the Fall 2000 elections to consider doing something about emissions, hoping that Gore would be victorious. And when he was not, they attempted (unsuccessfully) to push the issue right before Bush was inaugurated.
The last issue is that the Supreme Court usurped the power of the Congress to decide if and how car emissions should be regulated. It is unfortunate that Congress could not come to this conclusion on their own, most likely because of campaign contributions (on both sides of the aisle) from oil companies and car manufacturers. This hands off attitude has left the American people at the whim of what a handful of appointed legal academics have to say about the science of environmentalism.
Woof
Oh - from automobiles. Whew, I can breath again!
Personally, I get my exercise hunting liberals for sport...
I imagine the reason kids have so many allergies. Is they spend too much time being babied by Moms who use too many antibacterials and too many filters and don’t let their children play in the dirt. They feed their kids soy milk full of estrogens and wonder why their little boys act like little girls. Their kids has shortness of breath because they are fat and out of shape and suddenly the kid is on allergy medicine because they don’t have a pill to cure fat panting.
This little article illustrates why liberals are so dangerous. I think that since they are so dangerous to my economic and thus my family’s health and well being that they should be exterminated or at least isolated from the general population. Yes, using their own logic liberalism should be regulated and liberals should be rounded up and put in camps where the only people they can hurt is themselves. We don’t need them. They are a drain on all reasoned good people and continue to cause great harm to the poorest and most venerable among us. lol
Huh? Sounds like the Terry Schaivo case where people were saying: "The government should butt out and let the courts decide." Let's review, class, what are the three branches of government. Despite what Frau Facelift says, it's really not as if God has spoken.
I don’t know about putting people in camps, I kinda like debating liberals! The thing about their ideology is that they want to “help” people by providing things for them— like through welfare and universal health care. I guess it comes back to “the road to hell is pathed with good intentions.”
Relax, it was a joke meaning that the courts SHOULD NOT legislate from the bench— which is also seen in the last paragraph of the article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.