To the Editor:
The Daily editorial "EPA clears the air" (April 2, 2007) would applaud liberal justices on the Supreme Court for instructing the EPA as to how to act. The ruling, however, was little more than judges donning the facades of scientists and legislators, one more case in a steady string of activist decisions.
The editorial cast about the term "global warming" as related to car emissions as if it were more than mere scientific theory (granted, we do know that Al Gore could never be wrong about something). The opinion was characterized by hyperbole, arguing that "the longterm view" regarding global warming entails cars floating under the murky waters covering a former Peoria, Illinois. Hollywood, maybe. Science, no.
Nonetheless, no matter where you stand on global warming's relationship to the emission of greenhouse gases, we cannot simply throw the proper scope of the Supreme Court's power out the door because we fear a phenomenon in nature. Ignoring the sketchy certiorari standing of the petitioners, the Court swooped into the battlegrounds of Congress and the executive to address a public policy issue that should be decided at the polls. Justice Roberts echoed these concerns when he stated, "Today's decision recalls the previous high-water mark of diluted standing requirements." As usual, to placate outraged dissenters of judicial activism, the Court used insultingly vague words like "reasoned judgment," which would leave most with a perplexed eyebrow raised.
Why doesn't Congress do its job and regulate greenhouse gases in cars, seeing as they are the ones responsible to tax-paying voters who would be directly affected by the statute? Regulating car emissions is certainly within the proper jurisdiction of Congress, although it is a slap in the face to middle- and lower-class families struggling to get by in a weak economy and collapsing mortgage crisis.
Tuesday's New York Times stated that "Many said they still harbored doubts about the federal agency and predicted the decision would help push the Democratic-controlled Congress to address the issue." If people are concerned that the U.S. Congress will be the one to pick up the ball on an issue directly affecting the private lives, property, and finances of its constituents, rather than the executive or the judiciary, then we all have a problem.
For overstepping the appropriate bounds of the Supreme Court, for throwing off the judicial mantle for goggles or a double-breasted suit with a flag pin, the Court deserves no applause.
Sincerely,Ashley Samelson, senior
