But what's the Roanoke Times's excuse? Shared stupidity?
From an editorial this morning:
Now it's the EPA's turnThat's a lie and they know it.
The Environmental Protection Agency has a New Year's resolution: It will regulate carbon emissions. The EPA will act unilaterally because Congress failed to pass a climate bill. For that, the American people can thank a Republican Party more interested in denying the Obama administration success and rejecting science than in sound public policy.
Congress knew it faced a deadline. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Bush administration had violated the Clean Air Act by refusing to regulate greenhouse gases. That law obligated the EPA to regulate harmful pollution. Because greenhouse gases contribute to climate change, they plainly qualify.
[I]t is exactly what the law and the Constitution now require. [link]
The Supreme Court (in Massachusetts et al. v. EPA et al., 2007) ruled in a split 5-4 decision that the EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases (and required of the EPA an explanation as to why it shouldn't), not that "the law" required regulation.
Let's be clear:
1) "The law" (?) does not require that EPA take action when it comes to greenhouse gases.
2) The Constitution does not require EPA action (and I don't even know what that means; where in the Constitution is EPA regulation stipulated?).
3) And while we're on the subject of the bizarre, the statement that "greenhouse gases contribute to climate change" is so nebulous it borders on the silly.
4) From the Supreme Court's opinion:
"If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say so. [snip] The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists to make an endangerment finding.
"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."
In other words, the justices (ultimately) left it up to Obama's radicalized EPA to make an endangerment finding. The Court did not mandate it.
So stop with the Boucher line of obfuscation and deception. The law requires nothing. The EPA is simply poised - on its own - to wreck our economy in an effort to chase after another increasingly discredited environmentalist windmill. That being "climate change." Or whatever these miserable excuses for human beings are calling it today.
Which brings us to (5): Congress should abolish the EPA - now - before it destroys this once great country.
- - -
To Dan Radmacher and his team of fabricators at the Times:
"A lie does not consist in the indirect position of words, but in the desire and intention, by false speaking, to deceive and injure your neighbor."
-- Jonathan Swift --