The Wall Street Journal's editorial board has accused the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President Barack Obama of violating federalist principles for a rule that would limit air pollution that drifts across state lines. However, the same editorial page previously urged President George W. Bush to implement similarly designed policies during his presidency.
In 2005, the Bush administration's EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule to address pollution that drifts across state lines, "contribut[ing] significantly" to other state's smog problems. At that time, the WSJ did not appear to have an issue with programs that limit one state's pollution to help other states meet Clean Air Act obligations. For example, on July 12, 2006, the WSJ argued that "[o]ne of the great revolutions in environmental policy has been the adoption of the 'cap-and-trade' method for controlling air pollution, starting with the 1990 Clean Air Act. The basic idea is to have the government set overall limits and let the market figure out how most efficiently to achieve the goal. And it has been a major success" (retrieved via Factiva).
Now that President Obama is in office, the WSJ believes such cap and trade designs violate federalist intentions. Writing about a Supreme Court challenge to EPA's "Transport Rule," which has been proposed to replace the now-overturned Bush-era rule, the WSJ complained that it violated "the federalist structure of the Clean Air Act" because it "no longer gave states a chance to develop their own plans to meet their required 'good neighbor' emissions targets." The WSJ editorial ultimately concluded that "[t]he Supreme Court should overturn [the rule] for violating the federalist intentions of Congress[.]"
National Rifle Association board member Scott Bach wondered on NRA News how the mayor of Jersey City could support a gun safety survey because the mayor is a retired Marine and his grandparents survived the Holocaust.
On December 10, Associated Press reported that Jersey City, New Jersey Mayor Steven Fulop included a six question survey about gun safety in instructions for gun vendors to bid on contracts worth $350,000 to provide Jersey City with firearms and ammunition. Among the survey's inquiries are questions about whether the vendor sells assault weapons to the general public and if they take steps to prevent illegal gun trafficking.
Fulop told AP that he hopes other cities will follow his lead of inserting a "social responsibility component" into the bidding process for government contracts:
A 37-year-old former Marine, Fulop said he hopes larger cities will join the effort. Nearly every other industry, from construction to the garment industry, has some social responsibility component, he said, so why not gun manufacturers, dealers and vendors?
As the one-year anniversary of the December 14, 2012, mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School approaches, National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent is blaming "the self-inflicted scourge of political correctness" for the shooting that claimed the lives of 20 children and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut.
In his regular column for conspiracy website WND, Nugent wrote on December 11 that unless America followed a series of his policy recommendations -- including arming teachers, eliminating "gun-free zones," and getting "deranged people off the streets" -- "then those precious little 20 children and their six teachers and faculty members at Sandy Hook Elementary died for nothing."
He also explained mass shootings as a product of "political correctness" run rampant in society:
The first lesson we should take away from the Sandy Hook massacre is that the self-inflicted scourge of political correctness has dumbed down America enough to allow the conditions to continue to exist that will facilitate another twisted individual capable of doing the same thing to flounder about our society. In fact, it already happened at the Washington Naval Yard. It is going to happen again. And again.
There is no evidence, however, that Nugent's recommendations would prevent school shootings or reduce gun violence generally.
Channeling the NRA's first-post Newtown comments, Nugent claimed that, "The only way to stop a madman with a gun is a good guy or two with guns. Nothing else will work." Thus, according to Nugent, "supporting arming teachers and other faculty members is clearly the right choice."
In fact, an analysis of public mass shootings by Mother Jones that covered the past 30 years did not find a single mass shooting ended by an armed civilian. While the Obama administration and the National Education Association have supported funding for placing more armed members of law enforcement in schools, there is no evidence that the NRA and Nugent's unpopular proposal to arm teachers would prevent shootings.
Wall Street Journal editor James Taranto is blaming "the war on men" supposedly waged by "Barack Obama's America" for the school suspension of a six-year-old Colorado boy for sexual harassment.
First-grader Hunter Yelton made national news this week following his suspension from elementary school for sexual harassment after he kissed a female classmate on the hand. While the nation debated the appropriateness of the punishment, Taranto espoused a new theory in a December 11 piece for The Wall Street Journal: Yelton is the "littlest casualty in the war on men."
"In Barack Obama's America, even a small boy can become a sexual suspect," Taranto wrote, claiming the boy's school was "following orders from Washington" when it issued the suspension. As evidence, he cited an April 2011 letter from then-Assistant Secretary of Education, Russlynn Ali, which reminded schools, colleges, and universities receiving federal funds of their obligation under Title IX to respond to allegations of sexual violence and sexual harassment at their facilities.
Taranto decried these sexual harassment regulations as unfairly policing men, going so far as to suggest that sexual harassment is normal male behavior that has become stigmatized (quote marks are his own):
As amusing as the story of Hunter Yelton is, however, it is an example of a dire and widespread problem. "Sexual harassment" rules are ostensibly sex-neutral, but in practice they are used primarily to police male behavior. Feminists like Hanna Rosin note with triumph that girls and women do better in school than their male counterparts. One reason is that normal female behavior is seldom stigmatized or punished in the name of "civil rights."
And while college "justice" is often downright oppressive, the excesses of contemporary feminism know no age limits. As the story of Hunter Yelton demonstrates, the war on men is also a war on little boys.
Taranto's theory quickly made it to Fox News, where The Kelly File devoted an entire segment to speculating whether the Obama administration shares blame in the child's suspension. In response to host Megyn Kelly's question, "does the administration have a hand in this," conservative radio host Dana Loesch repeated Taranto's argument, claiming regulating sexual harassment "polices male behavior, it's the persecution of a guy."
In a recent investigative report, NBC News debunked right-wing media's insistence that lawsuits brought against gas can companies whose products explode were "frivolous." As reported by NBC, its findings not only led the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission to recommend that the industry remedy the gas can defect at the heart of the lawsuits, but also prompted co-defendant Wal-Mart to propose a $25 million settlement.
Last year, Blitz USA, the number one manufacturer of red gas cans who refused to put flame arrestors in their products' spouts, closed its doors. Flame arrestors are a commonly used device that is "almost two hundred years" old and inexpensively prevents gas vapor from igniting the contents of the can.
Right-wing media, however, blamed multiple "frivolous" lawsuits for Blitz USA's decision to cease operations. Despite the fact that the plaintiffs in the cases had been severely burned or killed after gas cans exploded when the spout was close to a heat source, The Wall Street Journal compared their lawyers to "19th century marauders" and characterized the gas can companies as "victims" of "modern robbery" by the trial bar. From the WSJ's editorial:
Like 19th century marauders, the trial bar attacks any business it thinks will cough up money in its raids. The latest victims are the people who make those red plastic gasoline cans.
Until recently, Blitz USA -- the nation's No. 1 consumer gasoline-can producer, based in Miami, Oklahoma -- was doing fine. It's a commoditized, low-margin business, but it's steady. Sales normally pick up when hurricane season begins and people start storing fuel for back-up generators and the like.
Blitz USA has controlled some 75% of the U.S. market for plastic gas cans, employing 117 people in that business, and had revenues of $60 million in 2011. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has never deemed Blitz's products unsafe.
Then the trial attorneys hit on an idea with trial-lawyer logic: They could sue Blitz when someone poured gas on a fire (for instance, to rekindle the flame) and the can exploded, alleging that the explosion is the result of defects in the can's design as opposed to simple misuse of the product. Plaintiffs were burned, and in some cases people died.
The Atlantic hurricane season started June 1, and Blitz estimates that demand for plastic gas cans rises 30% about then. If consumers can't find the familiar red plastic can, fuel will have to be carried around in heavy metal containers or ad-hoc in dangerous alternatives, such as coolers.
Trial lawyers remain a primary funding source for the Democratic Party, but stories like this cry out for a bipartisan counter-offensive against these destructive raids that loot law-abiding companies merely because our insane tort laws make them vulnerable.
The WSJ has a long record of opposing "frivolous lawsuits," so it's no surprise it would ignore the evidence on gas can explosions and side with the corporation. But the WSJ wasn't alone in its criticism of the gas can lawsuits. International Business Times went further than the WSJ, blaming victims for "product misuse and lawsuit abuse," and positively cited a spokesperson from the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) -- a partner of the pro-business lobbying group U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Fox News' Sean Hannity falsely claimed that a background check occurs on every gun sale in America to attack an ad that calls for action on gun violence in memory of the December 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
The December 10 edition of Hannity included a segment on a new ad called "No More Silence" from gun violence prevention groups Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG). The ad depicts a moment of silence for victims of the Newtown tragedy while also advocating for action to be taken on gun violence to prevent future tragedies. Asking if the ad was "politicizing tragedy," Hannity made a number of false claims about gun violence during the segment:
After American Values Institute Executive Director Alexis McGill Johnson said that action on gun violence would include reforms so that "every gun sold has a background check," Hannity replied, "We already have that." (Both MAIG and Moms Demand Action make expanding checks a major component of their advocacy.)
In fact, a significant number of firearms are sold without background checks through so-called private sales, often at gun shows or over the Internet. Gun shows and websites that specialize in private sales have been linked to illegal trafficking operations, both narcoterrorismand international terrorism, and serve as conduits for individuals who would fail a background check because they are prohibited by law from owning a gun. Indeed, research has shown that a large percentage of criminals obtain firearms through private transactions.
A new academic review from the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy contradicts Fox News' conflation of violence and mental health, finding that the two are only related under narrow circumstances and that the vast majority of people with mental health conditions are not violent. The report calls for developing better "evidence-based criteria" for determining who is more likely to commit acts of violence and prohibiting them from owning guns.
The December 11 report is the work of mental health and gun violence researchers from top universities and research programs including the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. The report emphasizes a commitment to create evidence-based gun violence prevention policy recommendations that are informed by "the best available research" on gun violence and mental health.
While noting that it is important not to stigmatize those with mental health conditions, the Consortium's report recommends expanding the federal prohibition on gun ownership by individuals adjudicated as having a serious mental health condition to also include persons receiving involuntary outpatient treatment when a court has ruled the person is a danger to themselves or others.
The Consortium's approach, where the recommendation is based on academic research, stands in sharp contrast to Fox News' reporting. Indeed, Fox News' coverage of the relationship between gun violence and mental health has often failed to provide a nuanced picture of what is a complex issue, with the network unfairly stereotyping individuals with mental health conditions as prone to violence and using mental health to distract from the most significant factor in much of gun violence: access to firearms.
The Wall Street Journal misled about a new Supreme Court case that could make it more difficult for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce regulations that would reduce cross-border air pollution, pretending that it was inappropriate for the federal government to regulate this quintessential interstate problem.
On December 10, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, a case challenging the EPA's authority to implement regulations to manage and reduce air pollution that drifts from source states into neighboring jurisdictions. Even though the EPA is empowered by Congress to promulgate rules to alleviate these coal plant pollutants through the Clean Air Act (the Act), a number of states and private companies sued the agency, arguing that it had exceeded its regulatory authority.
In a recent editorial, the WSJ complained (again) about the EPA's supposed regulatory overreach in its various attempts to curb acid rain and smog. But the WSJ ignores that air pollution that crosses state lines is a complicated and inherently federal problem with no easy solution, and one that states have failed at solving on their own. Because of national wind patterns, eastern states have become the dumping ground for midwestern and southern air polluters, even while they themselves "have squeezed all the pollution they can out of their own economies."
From the December 9 editorial:
The Environmental Protection Agency's habit of stretching its legal authority faces another reckoning ... when the Supreme Court considers whether the agency can rewrite the Clean Air Act to usurp state responsibilities. This one ought to be in Justice Anthony Kennedy's federalist sweet spot.
The case focuses on the Clean Air Act's "good neighbor" provision that gives EPA the power to oversee remedies when pollution in one state blows into a neighboring state. An upwind state that EPA judges to "significantly contribute" to a downwind state's failure to meet federal standards can be required to limit emissions by a commensurate amount.
Texas and more than a dozen other states as well as private companies challenged EPA in Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, and in August 2012 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the rule. Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote for a 2-1 majority that "Congress did not authorize EPA to simply adopt limits on emissions as EPA deemed reasonable." Democrats cried foul and blamed Judge Kavanaugh for being a Bush appointee, but it's telling that the full D.C. Circuit denied en banc review.
The EPA says in its defense that business should love the rule because it is the most cost-effective, but that isn't necessarily true for certain states. The Administration is also arguing that the states didn't raise their objections loudly enough during the rule-making process, but the states also didn't know how far this EPA would go until the rule was final.
The D.C. Circuit only rarely overturns EPA rules, which shows how out of bounds the cross-state regulation is. The Supreme Court should overturn it for violating the federalist intentions of Congress, but there is also the added judicial incentive to show this increasingly rogue agency that it can't rewrite the law as it pleases.
WSJ also complained that the new rules promulgated by the EPA to minimize the spread of air pollution from one state to another "violate the federalist structure of the Clean Air Act" because they evidently "no longer [give] states a chance to develop their own plans" to meet their "good neighbor" requirements. But this argument ignores the fact that not only has the WSJ itself previously acknowledged that "The EPA is within its legal discretion to reinterpret clean-air laws," but states that refuse to incentivize polluters within their borders to act responsibly in the face of a devastating public health crisis have only themselves to blame when the federal government steps in.
The gun violence prevention movement has won numerous victories in the year since the tragic mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, even as the media has often been quick to ordain the demise of the push for stronger gun laws that are overwhelmingly favored by the public.
The year following Newtown has seen the advance of gun safety as an issue important to Americans, including a renewed interest in gun safety legislation at the federal and state levels, new evidence that the NRA cannot determine election outcomes even in its home state of Virginia, increased grassroots and monetary pressure on the gun safety issue, and cultural indicators showing a rejection of the NRA's fringe agenda.
Washington Times columnist Robert Knight falsely claimed that a lawsuit of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is an assault on religion that is trying to "force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions." In fact, if the complaint is accurate, it is a straightforward negligence claim that alleges a pregnant woman's life was needlessly put in harm's way when she was denied appropriate care by a Catholic hospital adhering to binding directives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
On November 29, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of Tamesha Means, a Michigan woman who alleges she was denied proper and ethical medical care for an emergency miscarriage by Mercy Health Partners (MHP), a Catholic hospital under the authority of the USCCB. The USCCB forbids hospitals like Mercy from assisting in or facilitating abortions.
According to Means' complaint, she went to the emergency room at Mercy when she started to miscarry at just 18 weeks. Despite the fact that the fetus would most likely be stillborn or "die very shortly thereafter," doctors at Mercy never provided information about the option of an abortion, even though prolonging the pregnancy was life-threatening. Instead, Means says, the hospital sent her home twice -- even though she was having contractions, was in pain, and bleeding. On Means' third visit to Mercy's emergency room -- the only hospital reportedly within a half-hour's drive of her home -- she went into labor. Means' baby died just two hours after delivery.
In his December 5 editorial, Knight mischaracterized the basis of the lawsuit, complaining that the ACLU is attempting to "force Catholic doctors everywhere to violate their faith by facilitating abortions":
The ACLU wants Catholic hospitals to practice medicine without morals.
The American Civil Liberties Union is so upset that a Michigan baby died just after being born that the group is suing the Catholic Church for not deliberately killing the child earlier.
In a lawsuit filed on Nov. 29 against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in U.S. District Court in Michigan, the ACLU contends that the church's medical directives reflecting a pro-life stance against abortion resulted in negligent care for a woman with a troubled pregnancy who eventually lost the child.
"It's not just about one woman," said Kary Moss, executive director of the Michigan ACLU, in a Newsmax report quoted in The Washington Times. "It's about a nationwide policy created by nonmedical professionals putting patients in harm's way."
Translation: Either the Catholic Church directs Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or it will be bankrupted, courtesy of the ACLU, which fights for the "right" to abort even full-term, healthy babies.
This is about far more than Ms. Means' tragic situation or one hospital's alleged negligence. It's about forcing Catholic doctors everywhere to violate their faith by facilitating abortions. It strikes at the very heart of religious freedom and freedom of conscience. It's a corollary to the Department of Health and Human Services' mandate under Obamacare that faith-based institutions or businesses run by devoutly religious owners provide contraceptives regarded as abortifacients or face ruinous fines.
Since only the Catholic Church bothered to build a hospital within 30 minutes of Ms. Means' home, the ACLU contends that the facility should operate without religious principles guiding it or simply switch to the ACLU's brand of moral relativism, where unborn children are merely options.
It's like building the only power plant and providing electricity where there was none and then getting sued for not electrocuting the people that the ACLU thinks are expendable.
But this complaint is not questioning the religious faith of Catholic doctors. Following basic personal injury law and theories of vicarious liability, the ACLU alleges that because the USCCB required an anti-abortion policy at the Catholic hospital, the USCCB was responsible for egregiously substandard medical care.
National Rifle Association President Jim Porter falsely claimed that Medicare enrollees are asked to disclose household gun ownership to revive the NRA's decades-old scare tactics about a federal gun registry.
On the December 4 edition of the NRA News show Cam & Company, Porter claimed, "People are not interested in this government going into their records. That's why we are so concerned about everything they are doing to register people in firearms. Even when you go to register for Medicare or under these new programs they ask intrusive questions about -- that they have no business asking, they invade your privacy, and they also are asking questions about whether or not you have firearms in homes." Noting that the NRA has "been concerned about gun registration since 1968," Porter also suggested that his claim about an Obama administration gun registry scheme meant that "the public clearly sees and agrees with us about our concerns."
NRA leadership often baselessly suggests that the Obama administration is attempting to secretly regulate firearms in a manner inconsistent with the administration's public positions. A White House spokesperson has said a national gun registry "is not something that the president has supported" and the post-Newtown massacre Obama administration proposal to reduce gun violence did not call for a registry. In fact, the NRA previously acknowledged in a since-deleted post on its website that the creation of a registry by the government would be currently contrary to two federal laws.
Furthermore, in April, the NRA played a critical role in blocking Obama administration-backed U.S. Senate legislation that would have expanded background checks to all commercial gun sales while also making it a serious criminal offense for an attorney general to create a national gun registry.
Porter offered no evidence to support his claim that Medicare enrollment includes questions about gun ownership and in fact no such question is included in the application for benefits. A related claim that Medicare Annual Wellness Visits include mandatory questions about gun ownership has also been thoroughly debunked.
In a post on National Review Online about a series of lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraception mandate, editor at large Jonah Goldberg misled about the mandate, how contraception actually works, and then asked why conservatives are considered the "aggressors in the culture war".
On November 26, the Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments in Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius and Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores. Even though the plaintiffs are for-profit, secular corporations, they want to claim an unprecedented exemption from a generally applicable law -- the ACA's contraception mandate -- because the individual owners of the companies claim their religious opposition to birth control is constitutionally more significant.
Goldberg viewed this opposition as evidence of Democrats "getting deeply involved in the reproductive choices of nearly every American," arguing that the "conventional narrative" that "conservatives are obsessed with social issues" is thus unfair. Goldberg also significantly underestimated the impact a Supreme Court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would have on well-established First Amendment and corporate precedent.
From Goldberg's December 5 post:
Maybe someone can explain to me how, exactly, conservatives are the aggressors in the culture war? In the conventional narrative of American politics, conservatives are obsessed with social issues. They want to impose their values on everyone else. They want the government involved in your bedroom. Those mean right-wingers want to make "health-care choices" for women.
Now consider last week's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to consider two cases stemming from Obamacare: Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius and Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores. Democratic politicians and their fans on social media went ballistic almost instantly. That's hardly unusual these days. But what's revealing is that the talking points are all wrong.
Suddenly, the government is the hero for getting deeply involved in the reproductive choices of nearly every American, whether you want the government involved or not. The bad guy is now your boss who, according to an outraged Senator Patty Murray (D.,Wash.), would be free to keep you from everything from HIV treatment to vaccinating your children if Hobby Lobby has its way. Murray and the White House insist that every business should be compelled by law to protect its employees' "right" to "contraception" that is "free."
[B]irth-control pills really aren't the issue. Both companies suing the government under Obamacare have no objection to providing insurance plans that cover the cost of birth-control pills and other forms of contraception. What both Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties object to is paying for abortifacients -- drugs that terminate a pregnancy rather than prevent one. (Hobby Lobby also opposes paying for IUDs, which prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.) The distinction is simple: Contraception prevents fertilization and pregnancy. Drugs such as Plan B may terminate a pregnancy, albeit at an extremely early stage.
The plaintiffs in these cases aren't saying the government should ban abortifacients or make it impossible for their employees to buy them. All they are asking is that the people using such drugs pay for them themselves rather than force employers and co-workers to share the cost. In other words, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood want such birth-control decisions to be left to individual women and their doctors. Leave the rest of us out of it.
To answer Goldberg's initial question: conservatives are generally thought of as "the aggressors in the culture war" because they have dedicated countless legislative hours to passing unconstitutional abortion laws, have attempted to confer personhood on fertilized eggs, and often voted to defund clinics like Planned Parenthood, eliminating access to crucial family-planning services. In 2012, Republicans in Virginia tried to pass a bill that would have forced women to have a transvaginal ultrasound before obtaining an abortion -- a requirement that would have violated the federal definition of rape. Most recently, congressional Republicans threatened to shut the government down due to their opposition to access to contraception.
National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent proposed a compromise that would trade closing the gun show loophole for closing what he deemed "the federal voting loophole," which allows individuals who do not pay federal income tax to vote.
Implementing this plan would involve taking away the vote from a large number of Americans who work but do not owe federal income taxes as well as retirees and some individuals who cannot work because of illness or disability.
In a December 4 column for conspiracy website WND, Nugent -- calling himself a "prospective presidential candidate in 2016" -- framed his proposal as "a Great Compromise" and suggested that he would be willing to risk provoking the ire of gun activists (including his fellow NRA board members) in order to ensure its enactment.
The NRA vehemently opposes closing the gun show loophole -- a term used to describe the fact that many firearms sales at gun shows are conducted without a background check -- even though gun shows have been linked to firearms trafficking operations and terrorist activity. Earlier this year, the gun rights organization repeatedly spread false information about a failed U.S. Senate proposal to require background checks on sales at gun shows and at other commercial venues.
While Nugent wrote that his compromise is "mighty presidential of" him and suggested it "will make both sides of the political spectrum happy," his proposal would involve disenfranchising a substantial number of Americans.
From the December 5 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
Loading the player reg...
The New York Times reported on a dangerous legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) brought by officials in states who refuse to implement their own healthcare exchanges, which has been widely trumpeted in right-wing media. But these lawsuits are based on a far-fetched theory that the law only authorized essential tax credits in state exchanges, not federal ones, a counterintuitive claim that has been widely discredited.