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.
