The Rule of Law

Remember when the rule of law was a hot topic among conservatives? Obviously, 9/11 changed everything so in the name of national security we should ignore laws against torture and laws against warrantless wiretapping, but what many fail to realize is that 9/11 made environmental regulations obsolete as well:

The Supreme Court, in a decision 15 months ago that startled the government, ordered the EPA to decide whether human health and welfare are being harmed by greenhouse gas pollution from cars, power plants and other sources, or to provide a good explanation for not doing so.

The administration, naturally, decided to comply with the court order "opted to postpone action instead, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Washington Post." Ah, opted to postpone. And how does that work?

To defer compliance with the Supreme Court's demand, the White House has walked a tortured policy path, editing its officials' congressional testimony, refusing to read documents prepared by career employees and approved by top appointees, requesting changes in computer models to lower estimates of the benefits of curbing carbon dioxide, and pushing narrowly drafted legislation on fuel-economy standards that officials said was meant to sap public interest in wider regulatory action.

The decision to solicit further comment overrides the EPA's written recommendation from December. Officials said a few senior White House officials were unwilling to allow the EPA to state officially that global warming harms human welfare. Doing so would legally trigger sweeping regulatory requirements under the 45-year-old Clean Air Act, one of the pillars of U.S. environmental protection, and would cost utilities, automakers and others billions of dollars while also bringing economic benefits, EPA's analyses found.

Or maybe it wasn't 9/11 after all. Maybe they're just whoring for the coal and oil companies who fund them. Crazy notion, yes. Since we all know that John McCain (a) is a maverick (b) is in no sense running for Bush's third term and (c) has heroically broken with the GOP on climate change no doubt he'll be issuing a call for impeachment or something.

Comments

If automakers have to comply with tougher emissions standards, then the terrorists and Al Gore will have won.

Posted by cd6 | July 12, 2008 12:18 PM

You're surprised? This is the exact same Bush mantra.

Ignore the career experts cause we know better. Suppress fact that don't say what we want. Ignore trends that don't show what we want. If the experts don't say what we want, change the experts. Salt the earth on the way out.

Posted by Matthew | July 12, 2008 12:27 PM

I assume that the Republicans will yield the same powers (to igonre the SCOTUS rulings or to break the law) to the President Obama and his administration. Then what is the problem?

Posted by gregor | July 12, 2008 12:27 PM

Increased use of sarcasm is a sign of what? Resignation?

Posted by ferd | July 12, 2008 12:29 PM

Thanks, Matt. It's the same old story -- but you know, now and then we need our outrage refreshed, or we'll start defining deviancy down so far that we're not a democracy anymore.

Posted by Ted | July 12, 2008 12:30 PM

The rule of law is kinda a rich topic for Matthew to bring up when he's been so busy shilling for Obama and his FISA end run around the rule of law...

Posted by Petey | July 12, 2008 12:33 PM

If Bush does not have to obey court orders, then why do I?

Indeed, why should employees of the executive branch obey the president?

Posted by Duncan Kinder | July 12, 2008 12:57 PM

My favorite part of the shameless weaseling the administration has done over this EPA report is in the estimates of "other economic benefits" created by the recommended regulatory requirements.

The initial report concluded that stricter fuel economy standards would save Americans something on the order of $2 trillion by 2020--mostly due to reduced fuel costs. This calculation was based on a price of oil consistent with the $140ish/barrel that we currently see, projected into the future. The administration replaced that number with $58/barrel of oil, more or less arbitrarily, and predicted that it would stay there forever. They then claimed that this new calculation showed we would only save between $300 and $800 billion by 2020. Which is hardly worth bending over to pick up off the sidewalk.

The point is: economics is easy when you make up your own equations, and then make up the terms you plug into those equations, and then change the results of those equations anyway, if you don't like them. Nobel Prize please [makes grasping gesture].

Posted by Chesser | July 12, 2008 1:04 PM

No one has more tirelessly and persuasively identified the loss of respect for the rule of law as the corrupt center of American politics and media than Glenn Greenwald. He summarizes this thesis today.

Posted by Timothy Hughbanks | July 12, 2008 1:37 PM

Under the clean air act, the key finding is whether carbon dioxide emissions in current and future quantities 'are harmful to human health'. That is the finding BushCo would not allow to be published.

Now, the question is, what is too much? We know that breathing pure CO2 (vaporizing dry ice, for instance in a closed area, or escaping CO2 from a old volcano that contains a lake, will kill life fast and completely. We also know that too much CO2 will make the oceans acidic enough to kill all higher forms of life, endangering not only a major food source, but the very balance of the planet. We also know that in the past, high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere lead to climate change that wiped out much of land-based life, either from desertification or ice sheets. Sounds pretty dangerous to life.

So, BushCo's response is that these things won't happen (magic foresight) or the ratio of CO2 to O2 isn't in danger of being lethal - but they refuse to allow any science testimony on the process, just because. Faith-based policy!

No worries for Bush and Cheney. They've got zero to 20-some years left on their life-card, and fuck those who have more years than that.

I took an interdepartment seminar in college on 'the nature of evil' and we read lots of stuff that was very thought provoking writen since language was committed to writing. Today, one could put together a full college major on the same topic of evil, using only the record from the BushCo years.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | July 12, 2008 3:29 PM

How many tanks does the EPA/SCOTUS/Pelosi have?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 12, 2008 3:56 PM

the White House has walked a tortured policy path

This is the second time in a few weeks that the Washington Post has spoken of "torture" in a context that has nothing to do with actual torture. But when it comes to actual torture, they are very careful to use euphamisms such as "enhanced interrogation techniques".

I'm calling them on it - enabling bastards.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | July 12, 2008 4:35 PM

If the rule of law is important to you (and it should be) then Obama is not your man. It's time to quit pretending that it is OK for Obama to have violated the most basic tenants of our country - rule of law and the constitution. Hold these jokers accountable!

Posted by Phaedrus | July 12, 2008 6:40 PM

"No worries for Bush and Cheney. They've got zero to 20-some years left on their life-card, and fuck those who have more years than that."

If they attack Iran, the Iranians might decide to shorten their life-cards somewhat as an appropriate response. It wouldn't be hard.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 12, 2008 9:13 PM

But aren't we all glad that GeoWBush has brought honor back to the White House!!!

Posted by JohnMcC | July 13, 2008 12:22 PM