April 2, 2012 | 12 comments
March 31, 2012 | 8 comments
February 22, 2012 | 7 comments
January 12, 2012 | 8 comments
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
About “President Lies in Press Conference”, this is unavoidably true, unless he does not know what he is talking about. Neither is good news given the staggering consequences to flow from EPA’s discretionary action of regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, using provisions never intended for such purpose.
Which is to say, he is flat and tragically wrong, no matter how forcefully he insists it is so. It isn’t.
The 5-4 majority in Massachusetts v. EPA — and we know how the Left feel about 5-4 majorities effectively making decisions assigned to the political branches or process (coughBushvGorecough) — held that EPA could determine greenhouse gases are ‘pollutants’ if it chooses to but must ground any such decision in the statute.
In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, … or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 42 U. S. C. §7607(d)(9)(A). We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. Cf. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843-844 (1984) . We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute. (Justice Stevens writing for the majority).
This plainly exposes the president’s claim today as factually incorrect.
The majority made this decision by determining that “all airborne compounds of any stripe” that are ‘emitted’ can be called a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. To which Justice Scalia replied in his dissent in a footnote “It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an ‘air pollutant’. This reading of the statute defies common sense.” (emphasis in original but, give them no ideas, please!).
So, here we go already. Stop refusing to work with me when I shut you out, and the truth is as I see it even if I have to say that discretionary actions of my administration were legally mandated.
Or is he simply misinformed? Maybe some of this Republican outreach can include educating the president on something his advisors have obviously kept from him. Right here we see one major breakthrough that is right at hand for the taking. The Republicans can properly inform the president that he does not have to do what he has apparently been told the Court has demanded he do, and he then can decide not to do it. After all, it clearly is weighing on him, what with the insistence that he’s being made to do it. Enormous policy confrontation resolved.
It’s been less than a day and we’re getting somewhere already.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?