Filed under: Domestic Policy, Energy, Law, Regulation | Tags: Enviromental Zealots, Michiga v EPA, Supreme Court
In the case of Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court addressed a matter that is genuinely outside of voter’s control, the way-too-rapid expansion of the regulatory state. The problems all began with the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The problem seemed simple to Congress. We want clean air and clean water, and that’s what the EPA should be doing.
But the EPA is an agency filled with environmental activists and zealots, fully in line with Obama’s unwarranted belief in a dangerous global warming, and sure that the correct answer is to get rid of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and carbon in general. The answer is to force Americans to want to rely clean energy sources like solar and wind, with no understanding that solar and wind do not produce enough energy to be a significant source of power.
The EPA wants to force all coal-fired power plants to either shut down or do a lot or retrograding to eliminate any emissions from that nasty fossil fuel. Around 40 percent of our electricity is supplied by coal-fired power plants. The EPA’s new regulations would cost $9.6 billion annually, but the EPA claimed that it was appropriate to consider only public health risks. Well, nobody seems to know if there actually are any public health risks. They always put asthma at the top of their list of future childhood death, but the medical profession does not currently know what causes asthma, so that is a complete canard. By some estimates the cost of electricity would go up by as much as $1,200 per year for every American household.
The majority opinion, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, found that the EPA “unreasonably” interpreted the Clean Air Act to constitute a vehicle by which the environmental regulatory agency could institute new guidelines that were all but overtly aimed at shuttering “dirty” power plants. “EPA strayed well beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation in concluding that cost is not a factor relevant to the appropriateness of regulating power plants,” the opinion read. That’s significant; contrary to the wealth of shallow emotionality that suffices for modern political commentary, profits matter. Individual livelihoods and the economic health of the nation are still protected by the Constitution, and they should not be subordinated to environmental sustainability in the zero-sum game that has become America’s regulatory culture.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Economy, Health Care | Tags: King v Burwell, Legislating from the Bench, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court announced their decision in King v, Burwell. Conservatives are dismayed at the Court’s complicity in rewriting the Affordable Care Act. President Obama has been threatening the court for days attempting to cow the Supremes. What influence his threats had is not known, but hopefully is is none. Nevertheless, Chief Justice Roberts bypassed the separation of powers, and decided to help the Democrats out by assuming that the law didn’t mean what it said, and he would fix it by rewriting it. Essentially what he did the last time around. Rewriting the words of Congress to mean what they would have to say to make the law work — is making law. The Supreme Court is supposed to decide whether the words as written are Constitutional, that’s the judicial function. Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting, called it “somersaults of statutory interpretation” but it is legislating, not judging.
Holman Jenkins got it right:
By one standard no government program can fail, and that’s the standard being applied to ObamaCare by its supporters: If a program exists and delivers benefits, the program is working.
The polls do show that 74% of ObamaCare’s eight million enrollees are satisfied with their plans, because 87% of them are getting taxpayer subsidies that amount to an annual $3,312 per recipient, which is a pretty good deal for the recipients, not so much for the taxpayers. Oddly enough, those who are basically in good health, but just need flu shots or treatment for some minor deal, a broken arm, a sore throat are pretty pleased with their health care.Taxpayers who find that their premiums are going up 20% – 30%. or who find out their deductible has gone up to $6,000 aren’t so happy, because they are paying their premiums and their full medical bills besides. Jenkins again:
The right question about any program is whether the benefits justify the expenditure of taxpayer money. ObamaCare’s cheerleaders provide not cost-benefit analysis but benefit analysis—as if money grows on trees or is donated by Martians or can be printed in limitless quantities by the Fed. …
In the meantime, however, no worthwhile thoughts about ObamaCare, pro or con, are to be heard from people who count a program as a success just because Americans enjoy receiving benefits at the expense of other Americans.
A federal appeals court has upheld a U.S. district court’s injunction preventing the Obama administration’s executive amnesty programs from moving forward.
U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hannan placed a preliminary injunction on Obama’s executive amnesty programs in February, and denied a second request from the Justice Department in March — ruling that the executive order must not be implemented until the lawsuit from the states is decided, keeping the programs from taking effect. Obama’s attempts at amnesty included the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). Judge blocked the programs after a coalition of 26 states challenged the executive amnesty. The federal government did not help their case by preceding to grant work permits to illegals anyway, in spite of the injunction.
Justice Department lawyers sought a stay on the injunction fro the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court declined to issue a stay on a 2-1 vote because it concluded the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal. This represents a significant setback for Obama’s executive amnesty plans.
Judge Smith noted that the:
affirmative act of conferring “lawful presence” on a class of unlawfully present aliens. Though revocable, that new designation triggers eligibility for federal and state benefits that would be otherwise available.’
Although prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not ‘unfettered.’ Declining to prosecute does not convert an act deemed unlawful by Congress into a lawful one and confer eligibility for benefits based on that new classification.
Both the State of Texas and the Obama administration have signaled willingness to take the case to the Supreme Court. The
Texas is leading the 26 state coalition that is challenging the amnesty. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin are members of the coalition.
Filed under: Conservatism, Law, Liberalism, Politics, The Constitution | Tags: Obama Nomination, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Supreme Court
President Barack Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court today. The nomination is the major news on the internet today. There is much to be troubled by, but it will take time for exploration of her background and qualifications to take place.
Attorney Paul Mirengoff of Power Line wasted no words:
She has no judging experience.
She has little experience as a practicing lawyer.
She has approximately one year of experience as Solicitor General of the United States.
She has lots of experience in academia, but has published only a small amount of scholarly work, none of which seems particularly noteworthy.
As the dean of Harvard Law School, she was tolerant of conservative law professors, but not of the United States military.
This briefly sums up what everyone else has said in a brief space. We will have ample time to fill in the blanks.
A Supreme Court nomination is a very big deal. It is a lifetime appointment, and decisions will influence the country for generations. At present there is a great divide between those who revere the Constitution that has served us so well for 223 years, and those who feel that the Constitution must change and develop in concert with the ideas of the political party in power.
Filed under: Law, Politics, Progressivism, The Constitution | Tags: Democrat Lies/Dirty Tricks, Freedom of Speech, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court handed down a major decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the “Hillary: The Movie” case that was first argued last March, reargued in September, and finally decided last Thursday, January 21, 2010.
Background: During the 2008 election campaign, the nonprofit group Citizens United wanted to make a film available on cable-on-demand that was critical of then-candidate Hillary Clinton. Because Citizens United is organized as a corporation, under the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, its speech was banned. The movie was not allowed to be shown, and the law was backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations — including nonprofit advocacy corporations — either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election.
Citizens United challenged this ban, and the Supreme Court struck down this provision of McCain-Feingold , reversing a previous ruling — Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce —that permitted the government to ban corporations and labor unions from promoting or opposing political candidates.
Paul Sherman, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, which litigates free-speech cases nationwide points out:
The ruling in Citizens United is a straightforward application of basic First Amendment principles: “When Government seeks to use its full power…to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
The Democrats are OUTRAGED: Corporations are not entitled to free speech, political expenditures are not “speech”, protections of the Free Speech Clause properly apply to individuals not corporations, this will corrupt the democratic process, will radically increase powerful corporate influence in politics, blah, blah, blah. Democrats are afraid that corporations benefit Republicans, and free speech should not apply to anyone who might be critical of Democrats.
The First Amendment is about political speech, and if free speech only applies to speech that is pleasing to you, then it isn’t free, and it isn’t freedom — but tyranny. You might find it interesting to keep track of the numerous and constant efforts of the Democrats to stifle speech that they don’t like. For example, President Obama’s ban on Fox News continues.
Just watch. There will be a concerted effort on the part of the Democrats to overturn or overrule this decision. The “Democrats” aren’t much on Democracy, the Constitution (needs updating for modern times), especially the First Amendment — although that religion part is useful for getting rid of religious influences. They’re fairly fond of the “establishment” bit but always, always, ignore the — making no law that might “prohibit the free exercise thereof” part.
Progressives are passionately fond of larger government, the growth of government, and the exercise of lots of government power. The Constitution puts some firm limits on what government can and cannot do. They don’t like that.