John Roberts is a dangerous man. He is a dangerous man because he poses a dual threat: he poses a threat to the environment, and the right of Congress, through the commerce clause, to protect the environment. His environmental record, by far, indicates someone who conforms to the Reagan doctine of rolling back environmental safe-guards with worship of the dollar bill serving as the bottom line.
In fact, one might say that Roberts supports commerce that involves the trade of endangered species for profitable development.
Consider the Hapless Toad:
There is an environmental panel this moment on C-Span, and this panel will air again tonight on C-Span 2 from 9:30 to 11p.m.
I derived my sources for this diary from http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/07/22/
gertz-roberts/. (Sorry, need to study links further)
What has many environmentalists quaking in their boots regarding his nomination is his position on the ability of Congress to regulate commerce to protect clean water, clean air and endangered species.
In other words, what is at issue is the power of the people, through Congress to protect and preserve our environmental heritage for our children and grandchildren.
[snip]
In Rancho Viejo, Roberts dissented from the majority decision that upheld the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s authority under the Endangered Species Act to protect the toad.
(Robert’s opinion):
“The panel’s approach in this case leads to the result that regulating the taking of a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California constitutes regulating ‘Commerce … among the several States.'”
[Snip]
Legal decisions for decades have upheld the federal government’s right to regulate air, water, wild species, and other parts of the shared environment under the commerce clause. While some experts have said that Roberts was not arguing to overturn Rancho Viejo, but rather to send it back to a lower court to find a better legal foundation for protecting the toad, his manner of dissent may indicate that he adheres to the conservative “New Federalist” legal philosophy that would limit the federal government’s ability to enforce cornerstone national environmental laws by giving more power over policy to state governments.
“No court has ever upheld a similar constitutional challenge to any federal wildlife statute,” said Sugameli, “so the context in which he wrote this is troubling. This is a very important issue which may have implications for Clean Water Act provisions that protect water and wetlands, and other potential environmental issues.”
Robert’s snarky opinion was funny to many observors, but the joke is on us, and the environment.
What is at stake, what is endangered, is the power of the people through Congress, and the enactment of laws, to regulate commerce in the name of clean air, clean water, and the preservation and restoration of our natural resources.
There was an environmental panel today on c-span that included some environmental high rollers, all very nervous about the Roberts’ nomination. Yet not a one said, unabashadly, this nomination ought to be opposed.
Well I’m going to say it. This nomination ought to be opposed. Vigorously. No question.
We can’t afford someone who holds beliefs in direct contrast with the protection of environmental safeguards.
We cannot afford doubts as to the motives of a supreme court nominee in regards to the environment.
The commerce clause must be protected as a tool for Congress to regulate and pass laws to protect our environment.
Like it or not, we the people speak through our elected representatives. WE must protect the commerce clause as a means of protecting the environment.
There are many reasons to oppose John Roberts. Safeguarding and restoring our environmental heritage is just one of them.
This link will work.
To do links, you can just do this:
<a href=”your URL”>Text describing link</a>
Oh, and great diary btw. IMHO, his thoughts on the commerce clause and on what the 9th amendment means (especially regarding a right to privacy) should be front and center during the confirmation hearings.
Thanks. Sometimes that format breaks the margins, doesn’t it? I need to research tinyurl, or whatever…
That shouldn’t; pasting URLs into the text directly can.
I find it very telling that the administration feels it has to “go stealthy” on other aspects of Roberts’ opinions, but on the environment he’s just hanging out there as an extremist for all to see and they don’t care.
By far, I believe Roberts’ opinions on the commerce clause have the greatest potential for long-term damage to the country and the planet. If they knock out the commerce clause as a basis for environmental law, we’re left flapping in the breeze until we can pass a constitutional amendment addressing the right to a healthy environment, as France recently did. And that’s a tall mountain to climb. 🙁
The Los Angelas Times today said there are 14 moderate democrats willing to vote for Roberts, despite the fact that the administration refuses to release documents When Roberts was chief deputy to then solicitor-general Kenneth Starr.
This was Roberts’ highest held office, and we can’t get info on his opinions then.
Apparently, the 14 moderate democrats who are more than willing to cave on this issue no longer understand the true meaning of democracy.
I’m doing a search for their names and I will have further info.
Given what has been uncovered about Roberts’ stances on the issues, these Democrats cannot be classified as moderate. They are, by definition, hard-right, and must be treated as such.
Unfortunately, my money’s on the list including Reid, Clinton, Lieberman, Biden, and the rest of the Usual Suspects.
Yes, 14 so-called moderate democrats have hijacked the senate on this nomination, despite the no-release on the documents pertaining to his record.
These 14 “moderates” have decided John Roberts is an honorable candidate, despite the refusal of this administration to allow a review of his record while in the highest office he has ever served.
I’m not sure I trust their definitions of a thriving democracy.
.
CHICAGO – Supreme Court nominee John Roberts skipped the American Bar Association’s yearly meeting, but big-name conservatives like Kenneth Starr and Theodore Olson were there to promote his credentials.
Ted Olson Supports Roberts
Top conservatives, from Starr and Olson to Reagan administration Attorney General Edwin Meese and Federalist Society leader Leonard Leo, were attending the meeting and serving as unofficial ambassadors on Roberts’ behalf. “For those people who know him and can vouch for his capabilities and his excellence, this is a good opportunity,” Meese said.
Roberts’ nomination is also being promoted on television, radio and the Internet, with a $1 million campaign by the conservative group: Progress for America.
About 10,000 people were in Chicago for the ABA’s 128th annual meeting. The group weighs in on all federal judge appointments, with a grade on their qualifications. A committee has not finished the Roberts’ credentials review, but that didn’t stop lawyers who are not involved in the process from engaging in their favorite pastime: debating.
“He has covered his tracks well,” said Barton Resnicoff of Great Neck, N.Y, while wandering through exhibits of vibrating recliner chairs, custom suit makers and law books.
~~~