SC rules Bush has power to control gas

I promised a few days ago I would comment further on Monday's Supreme Court's 5-4 decision that the Bush administration (and any administration) has the power to regulate greenhouse gases.

As an avid environmentalist, I should be happier than I am. Why? Because this administration has nearly two years to go before we get a change in leadership, and by extension, a change in environmental policy.

This does signify a victory, but not a significant one, yet. If this administration had any sort of moral compass, this would qualify as an embarrassment. But, how can the shameless be embarrassed? I can just imagine the conversation in the White House: "Uh oh, the greenies are knocking at our door again. Someone get me Phil Cooney on the phone!"

The Bush administration argued that Congress never gave it the power to determine whether carbon dioxide was a pollutant as defined in the Clean Air Act. In the majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court said administrations do have such authority.

Best of all, in unusually strong language, Stevens sided with scientists who say that U.S. car emissions do contribute to greenhouse gases, leading to global warming. In doing so, he refuted the argument of energy industry officials and Republicans who reason there is no proof of global warming.

Stevens wrote that the contribution of American cars to global warming is so significant that strong regulations "would slow the pace of global emissions, no matter what happens elsewhere in the world."

Since the US is by far the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, I'm inclined to agree with Stevens somewhat, but really, we could cut our emissions to zero, but if China and India aren't on board with controlling greenhouse gases, we're all going to cook anyway. This is precisely why the United States needs to show leadership on this issue, which, to date, the US has done a very poor job of doing. (Remember when the US showed leadership on anything other than starting wars? Yea, me neither.)

Following of the court's decision, the White House was predictably ambiguous.

"We questioned whether we did have the legal authority," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. [More like this administration didn't want the legal authority.] "Now the Supreme Court has settled that matter for us, and we're going to have to take a look at it and see where we go from there."

"...look at it and see where we go from there" is Bush-speak for "on the back burner until 2009," when we get a new president.

Incidentally, does anyone find it ironic that Bush campaigned in 2000 on the promise of mandatory caps on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (a campaign promise he almost immediately broke once appointed president), yet his administration ended up going before the SC to argue that it didn't have the power to regulate such emissions? The irony is thicker than LA smog on a hot August day.

One other thought on this ruling: The importance of the 2009 Presidential Election, strictly from the standpoint of the Supreme Court, cannot be overstated. If Stevens retires, the court will be hopelessly conservative for generations to come. Bush has already appointed two SC justices - if he has the opportunity to appoint a third, it would be a disaster for the environment, abortion rights, civil liberties and a host of other issues.

Here's a cheerful thought - heaven forbid we have another disputed election circa 2000. If Bush gets a third appointee, we'll simply have a Republican coronation for president every four years.

It's funny - I remember preaching this to many people in political discussions before the 2000 election, and it just didn't seem to resonate, even among Democrats. It matters now more than ever. The Supreme Court should be near the top of the list on DemocratIC voters minds for this election.

I can never hear or read a story about the Supreme Court without thinking about Stevens, the SC's senior justice. He turns 87 in a few weeks, and I sure hope he remains healthy until he's 89, when a DemocratIC president can name a liberal successor.

The Legislative Branch now has the authority to do something about global warming, while working with Congress. Now we need an administration with the political will to do it. Tick-tock, tick-tock - 653 days to go.

It's no secret I hope Gore enters the presidential race, but if he doesn't (and it's looking more and more likely he won't with each passing day), I wonder how receptive he would be to becoming Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency? Now that would be an amazing cabinet appointment.

Of course, there are other ways for Gore to serve a Democratic administration, and I hope he is given the opportunity.

In case you missed the footage from Olbermann early this past week about the SC's decision, here it is again...