Concerning the conservative court's ruling against the Bush administration regarding emissions controls by the EPA, will the Bush administration try to fight the ruling?
There is at least one documented case of the White House just deciding they knew best and ignoring court rulings (remember wiretapping?). Do you think that Bush can afford any more fights at the moment?
What do you think will happen now concerning emissions control?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/supremecourtopinions/2007-04-02-epa-emissions_N.htm?POE=NEWISVA
2007-04-03
06:58:28
·
9 answers
·
asked by
apocalypso blues
5
in
Environment
I do appreciate my friends from the other side of the political spectrum voicing their opinions without name calling! People with differing points of view on politics are not always so polite. Thanks!
2007-04-03
07:16:26 ·
update #1
You're right about another fight, his political capital is about maxed out!
He has much more to be worried about than finally doing something positive for the environment during his term!
I do think the administration will drag their feet and prolong enacting emission controls as long as possible.
2007-04-03 07:03:32
·
answer #1
·
answered by Abby O'Normal 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
previous Bush ignorings of courts was during the McCarthy-esque scare-tactic-era that is now over. On some issues, Bush went from 80% support to 80% against.
BTW the current Supreme Court is a very conservative court, almost entirely appointed by Republican presidents. (seven out of the nine justices are Republican appointees).
There are two moderate liberals, four moderate conservatives, and three ultra-conservatives on the Supreme Court. Its even more conservative than it was when it blocked recounts in 2000 and appointed our current president.
The fact that Bush manages *ever* to lose a case at the Supreme Court is a testament to how extreme he became, and how often he flaunts the constitution. But then, he's also alienated about half the Republicans, so none of this should be surprising..
The best explanation I can find as to why Bush hasn't been impeached yet for violating the constitution is because a) it'll take almost as long to impeach him as the he has left of his term. and
b) all the Democrats want to run against him in the next election cycle.
2007-04-03 23:49:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by netizen 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The court ruling simply told the EPA their previous excuses for regulating CO2 were not valid and they needed to rethink the issue.
The EPA is very much under Bush's control. The Administrator was appointed by Bush, as were the people directly under him. They can be fired at any time. They'll take their time.
The issue will be decided by the next administration. Right now most of the candidates favor action on global warming. One conservative is particularly eloquent.
"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."
Senator John McCain, Republican, Arizona
2007-04-03 11:40:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bob 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
If the EPA starts regulating CO2 emissions like they have nitrogen oxides and the like the economy of the US is largely doomed. The EPA is independent enough that what President Bush wants will not matter.
The simple truth is that you can't have clean combustion without producing water vapor (did you know that this is a greenhouse gas too?) and carbon dioxide. While the US uses a lot of energy it also makes a lot of goods. In fact, US is rather efficient in its energy use compared to the rest of the world. (Our per capita consumption is high simply because we can make a hell of a lot more with fewer people than most anyone else.)
Be very careful of what you wish for. If the EPA does what I think they will, many jobs in this country will simply go to China, India and other non-regulated countries taking with them the opportunity for many of the young people who visit Yahoo to become economically successful. The net result will be a very poor US economy and no world-wide reduction in CO2 emissions.
So, it is not Bush who is getting screwed by this decision it will be you and all those who aren't already well off financially.
Have a nice life.
2007-04-03 07:11:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Flyboy 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Bush won't settle for the actuality that his administration our whores to corporation and permit the rustic to be up on the marketplace. Did Bush settle for bribes? Who knows? however the EPA additionally claimed the air replaced into ok after 911 and look on the type of the well-being matters from respiration that Bush sparkling air. Bend over united states of america of america Bush will force.
2016-10-02 02:51:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by carol 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Lets hope so. That ruling is as bad for the constitution as Dred Scott v. Sandford or Plessy v. Ferguson.
By the way, the current supreme court is not a conservative court. There are 4 liberals, 4 conservatives and one liberal leaning swing vote.
2007-04-03 07:12:08
·
answer #6
·
answered by dsl67 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
It is not a conservative Supreme Court obviously. There were four decent conservative decenters however. The other 5 need to get a clue and yes Bush will respect their idiotic decision. Pretty soon they will tax your breathing since you are spewing CO2.
2007-04-03 09:03:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by JimZ 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
It has been done in the past the courts handed down a ruling and the president told them to enforce it. The court has no enforcement power. If they think they are so right will the court be liable if we don't have global warming.
2007-04-03 08:26:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by JOHNNIE B 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I remember that wiretapping case-the court ruled against him and he just ignored the ruling.
I too think he has too much to worry about now with his administration crumbling around him, and you just KNOW he wants to hit Iran!
2007-04-03 07:05:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Abby Normal 7
·
1⤊
3⤋