CBS News reports:
The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.
So what? President Bush should simply ignore the “rebuke.” He should just announce after a few weeks that he has taken “a fresh look” and found no compelling reason to change his current policy.
Anyway, I don’t know how a 5-4 decision by the Court can be considered a rebuke. It would appear that the Court is divided almost down the middle on the issue.
I have said that no bill before Congress should become law without approval by a two-thirds majority. I also believe that all rulings by the courts (Supreme, District, and Appeals) should be unanimous. If a small number of justices can’t reach agreement on an issue, then it should be considered a ‘no decision’.
Another argument for unanimous decisions is that the makeup of some courts — like the present Supreme Court — essentially gives one justice the power to make most rulings. The Supreme Court often decides along ideological lines. The Court is now made up of four liberals, four conservatives and one moderate. The vote of the moderate ’swing voter’, Anthony Kennedy, often determines the decision on major cases before the Court.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.
Again, so what? Police have the authority to shoot criminals when threatened by them but they don’t always do so. (Yeah, I know. They do sometimes shoot innocent citizens when they aren’t threatened by them.) ‘Authority’ doesn’t mean ‘obligation.’ If the Supreme Court thinks it does, does that mean that the Court will rule in my favor if I sue the federal government to get them to enforce immigration laws? That may turn out to be the best thing about this ruling: It establishes a precedent that can be used to force the government to shut down the flow of illegals into this country.
Yesterday I wrote about how majority rule might not always be in our best interest. Today I have a real-life example here in my local area. Twenty-five years ago South Walton County was lightly developed, even along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico. That was about the time that Janet Reeves and Dave Hillgenberg opened their businesses on US Highway 98. Reeves operates a gift shop and Hillgenberg operates a glass and mirror service.
Fast-forward to today and you find a thriving retirement and tourist community of hotels, resorts, restaurants, condominiums, vacation homes and supporting businesses — most of them along US Highway 98. Since South Walton had ‘progressed’ from mostly pine forests and sand to an upscale community where many of the homes are priced in the millions, the majority of the new residents decided that businesses should abide by certain standards of appearance. This majority also decided that these standards of appearance would be retroactive — that no exceptions would be made for small businesses like those of Reeves and Hillgenberg. Never mind that the new standards would place a serious burden on their bottom line.
One could argue that the intent of such standards is just that: to drive businesses that don’t measure up out of business. The tax structure already achieves that end — intentional or not. As property values increase, property taxes increase, and at some point some types of low volume businesses are unable to generate a profit. The proprietors are then forced to sell to a more profitable business. And they can’t always depend on getting what their property is really worth. For example, it might be a very small piece of property sandwiched between two much larger properties. If neither of the adjoining businesses want it, who else is going to buy it?
Anyway, back to Janet and Dave. They sued the county arguing that the “scenic corridor guidelines designed to give the area a uniform look” should not apply to them. They lost. A federal judge said neither Reeves nor Hillgenberg had enough evidence to make their case. The judge apparently believes that their businesses can be sacrificed in order to give the area a uniform look. Since when is a ‘uniform look’ a valid public interest?
Yes, Reeves and Hillgenberg probably could have made the required changes in the appearance of their businesses for the money they spent on the suit, but I applaud them for not doing so. What will this country be like in fifty years if everyone caves to the tyranny of the majority? How long before Starbucks wants your house?
