Skip Navigation
Judging the Environment judicial nominations photo
 

A project tracking federal judicial nominations and courts.


Defenders of Wildlife

Editorials and Opinion

 

Issue
Nominee
Publication
Opinion Type
 

 

Items 1 - 30 of 628  12345678910Next

Rand Paul's Brand of Judicial Activism (Bloomberg News, 01/26/15)
Cass R. Sunstein: "For many decades, the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York has ranked among the most universally despised rulings in the history of American law....Within the federal courts, Paul’s position is closely aligned with that of Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Brown has contended that the New Deal “inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of underground collectivist mentality,” which transformed the Constitution into “a significantly different document.” In a recent opinion, she complained that without an active judiciary, “property is at the mercy of pillagers.” Judge Brown has no enthusiasm for judicial restraint. Along with like-minded colleagues, she has played a leading role in a series of aggressive lower-court decisions, striking down restrictions on commercial advertising, invalidating financial regulations and otherwise protecting economic liberty. There’s good reason to resist this trend, which would empower federal judges to exercise far too much authority over the American people."

The world must tackle climate change: editorial (Cleveland Plain Dealer [OH], 01/25/15)
"Years of all talk and no action on climate change may finally be over.... naysayers still lurk -- some of them in Congress -- denying that climate change exists or that humans can do anything about it, but they should not hold sway. The consensus of reputable climate scientists is that the pace of climate change could accelerate with disastrous economic consequences if more isn't done soon."a

PD Editorial: No more red herrings in water talks (Press Democrat [CA] , 01/25/15)
"Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t bite on the smelt vs. farmers argument. Last week, the justices rejected an appeal from the Westlands and Metropolitan water districts, among others, seeking to overturn limits on pumping water from the Delta into canals serving Central Valley growers and Southern California cities. Those limits were put in place to protect the smelt as well as several species of salmon .... The pumping limits withstood scrutiny from the National Academy of Sciences and the federal courts, but .... House members from the Central Valley are again sponsoring legislation to waive the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the delta smelt. But the problem isn’t a tiny endangered fish. It’s a lack of water"

EDITORIAL: Drillers’ duty (Toledo Blade [OH], 01/09/15)
"Nine environmental groups filed suit this week to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to add gas and oil extractors to the list of industries that must report emissions to the federal toxic release inventory.... after trying for 2½ years to get the agency to change its mind, the environmental groups are suing to force a change. ...If the EPA won’t impose the reporting requirement on gas and oil extractors, the court should."

EDITORIAL: Emissions reporting: Drillers have the same duty as other industries (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [PA], 01/09/15)
"A coalition of nine environmental groups filed suit Wednesday to force the Environmental Protection Agency to add gas and oil extractors to the list of industries that must report emissions to the federal Toxic Release Inventory....In 1997, the EPA unwisely decided to exempt the industry from the emissions reporting requirement. Now, after trying for two and a half years to get the agency to change its mind, the environmental groups filed suit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to force a change....If the EPA won’t impose the reporting requirement on gas and oil extractors, the court should."

EDITORIAL: Protecting wetlands is worth red tape (Post and Courier [SC], 01/05/15)
"Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 raised questions about EPA jurisdiction over certain bodies of water under the Clean Water Act. The agency hopes to clear up confusion with a new rule that would more strictly delineate its authority to manage so-called intermittent streams and isolated wetlands, among other vital ecosystems....But drainage ditches and farming practices are expressly excluded from EPA regulation under both the new rule and the larger Clean Water Act. Floodplains, groundwater and stock ponds are also generally exempted. It's difficult to argue that the rule is much of an extension of EPA authority at all....And it's important to remember what the Clean Water Act defends: safe drinking water and critical natural ecosystems.... those changes acknowledge that protecting water resources in a necessity, particularly in the face of unrelenting development."

EDITORIAL: The EPA’s move to regulate ‘coal ash’ is a step forward (Washington Post, 01/02/15)
"EPA’s latest move to regulate huge accumulations of “coal ash” is, if anything, too modest.... coal ash pits saw major spills — one in Tennessee in 2008 and one in North Carolina in 2014 — that fouled rivers and endangered people and wildlife. Environmentalists report dozens more instances of air or water contamination ...Environmental activists warn that the EPA declined to classify coal ash as hazardous waste, a designation that would have triggered stricter federal oversight. ... EPA is largely leaving enforcement to the states, which have been the only overseers before now, though private citizens and environmental groups will be able to sue to demand adherence to the rules. The regulations leave room for extremely lengthy delays"

The benefits of regulation (Greensboro News & Record [NC], 12/29/14)
Editorial writer Doug Clark: "regulatory agencies have been created and given rulemaking authority for a legitimate reason. It's that, before they existed, business and industry often profited at the expense of the public. They sold unsafe products or polluted the air and waterways with reckless abandon. We all suffered the consequences.There are still concerns today, whether the topic is coal ash storage, or fracking, or motor vehicle safety. Simply saying we've got to make the regulatory environment more friendly to business -- without considering the costs -- is irresponsible."

EDITORIAL: State should stay course on coal ash (Asheville Citizen-Times [NC] , 12/27/14)
"Essentially, the Environmental Protection Agency will treat coal ash the same as household waste. Environmentalists had insisted, to no avail, that the ash instead by classified as a hazardous material. The argument for their position is strong....The new federal rules would not have prevented the Dan River spill.... Fortunately, N.C. has its own rules. They are not as strong as we would prefer in some areas, but they are better than what the EPA has produced."

EDITORIAL: Clean water woes: Congress should stop blocking a sensible EPA rule  (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [PA], 12/27/14)
"A new rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency would give it the authority to regulate small waterways that flow into watersheds and affect water quality. Republicans in Congress oppose the science-based rule, but water safety shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Instead of kowtowing to business interests to block the regulation, Congress should let the EPA do its job. The rule would give the agency authority to regulate streams, wetlands and other “intermittent and ephemeral” waters, based on findings that such waters can have substantial effects on rivers."

EDITORIAL: Chance missed (Greensboro News & Record [NC], 12/26/14)
"Federal regulators considered classifying coal ash a hazardous waste that requires special disposal. Instead, they will consider it no different than the banana peels and candy wrappers you put out in a can at your front curb. EPA passed up a chance to set high standards. The Obama administration took far too long to produce the rules, only publishing them under court order.... The biggest shortfall of the federal rules is that they will not be actively enforced. ...self-compliance seems dubious. More likely, it will be up to citizens to take them to court to enforce the law."

EDITORIAL: Clean-water woes: The nation needs better regulation of waterways, and Congress should back away from efforts to block it (Toledo Blade [OH], 12/26/14)
"Toledo’s water crisis last August made clear that the nation needs stronger water-protection laws to prevent another such emergency. A new rule proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would give the EPA the authority to regulate small waterways that flow into watersheds and affect water quality, in Ohio and across the country. Predictably, Republicans in Congress oppose the science-based rule. But water safety shouldn’t be a partisan issue"

EDITORIAL: EPA falls short on coal-ash rule (Lexington Herald-Leader [KY], 12/26/14)
"Regulations issued last week by the Environmental Protection Agency for waste from coal-fired power plants are welcome but fall short of fully protecting the public. Coal ash — the residue left over after coal is burned to produce electricity — contains varying amounts of carcinogenic and toxic metals ....The EPA, which was under a federal court's deadline to issue a regulation by Dec. 19, decided not to classify coal ash as hazardous, categorizing it instead as solid waste, the same as household garbage. That decision, which disappointed environmentalists and will save utilities billions, means there still will be no direct federal scrutiny of coal-ash landfills and impoundments. Instead the new federal rules will be enforced by state environmental agencies and, more likely in Kentucky, which has a high tolerance for coal industry shortcuts, by citizen lawsuits."

EDITORIAL: EPA's new ash rule is a Christmas lump of coal (Chattanooga Times [TN], 12/22/14)
"Don't tell residents of East Tennessee that coal ash is just trash.... Because coal ash is and should be treated like the hazardous waste it really is. Yet that's not the new rule made Friday when -- under a court-ordered deadline -- the Obama Administration's EPA took the path of least resistance and caved in to moneyed coal interests.... Giving coal a hazardous classification would have put the federal government in charge of enforcement. Classifying coal ash as trash instead leaves it up to states to ensure standards are met. Tennessee has already seen how state oversight plays out."

Editorial: EPA's decision on coal ash rule is a disappointment (Knoxville News Sentinel [TN], 12/22/14)
"Under a court-ordered deadline, the EPA announced Friday it would implement the less stringent of two options for regulating coal ash. Essentially, the agency's choices were to treat coal ash as hazardous waste or as little more than municipal garbage. The EPA chose the latter, a keen disappointment.... The adopted rule establishes minimum standards for impoundments but leaves regulation up to the states and citizen-initiated lawsuits. While it is much better than having no restrictions at all, the rule risks uneven enforcement between states and encourages costly and time-consuming court battles. The new federal rule is a welcome alternative to the status quo, but the EPA missed an opportunity to provide the highest level of protection for communities where coal-fired power plants operate."

Editorial: New top environmental regulator should work for citizens, not ‘customers’  (Gaston Gazette [NC], 12/11/14)
"And three times the state stepped in to halt environmental groups’ lawsuits aimed at forcing Duke Energy to clean out its ash ponds. Under federal law, a lawsuit headed for the courts may be delayed if the state announces its intent to take action. But in North Carolina’s case, that action was much less than the environmentalists were seeking. Questions about the cozy relationship between DENR staff and the businesses they regulate did not originate with this administration; it has been an ongoing issue. Regulators do not have to be unnecessarily obstructionist."

EDITORIAL: Clean up Lake Erie — for real; A proposed state law offers mildly useful anti-pollution measures, and a lot of junk that needs to be tossed out (Toledo Blade [OH], 12/04/14)
"Four months after toxic algae blooms in Lake Erie poisoned Toledo’s water supply, cleansing the lake remains an urgent imperative. Yet state lawmakers appear content to address the crisis with half measures, using a bill supposedly aimed at improving Ohio’s water quality to pursue unrelated, pernicious goals."

Editorial | Starving the beast (Courier-Journal [KY] , 12/01/14)
"Ruling in a case involving alleged violations by the Frasure Creek Mining Co., Judge Shepherd found that state cuts over the past 10 years have “drastically and adversely affected the ability of the cabinet to do its job in implementing the Clean Water Act.”...Even more troubling is that it took an outside group of citizens’ advocates to uncover the problems and bring them to the state’s attention. Groups including Appalachian Voices, Waterkeeper Alliance and Kentuckians for the Commonwealth found some coal companies falsified reports they are required to file with regulators. Prodded to act, state regulators ... did little to investigate the actual environmental harm, then attempted to enter into a modest settlement ... . Judge Shepherd rejected the settlement as one that sends the message that “cheating pays.” He also rejected the attempt of the state to cut the outside citizens’ groups out of its final settlement with Frasure Creek Mining, ordering they be included."

EDITORIAL: Coal's costs keep adding up (Lexington Herald-Leader [KY], 11/30/14)
"Judge Phillip J. Shepherd laid bare the charade that is Kentucky's enforcement of coal industry compliance with the Clean Water Act. The judge described a state agency that barely even goes through the motions of enforcing the law.... The massive violations were discovered by citizens who threatened to sue. The cabinet agreed to a consent decree under which Frasure Creek would pay $310,000. The cabinet also fought — and lost — all the way to the state Supreme Court to exclude citizens from any involvement in deciding the case. Shepherd ruled the penalties were too small .... coal. It's not cheap, though. The costs are high — they just get pushed onto someone else, the disabled or dead miners, or Kentuckians who depend on water, ruined by surface mining, that flows from the mountains across our state."

Make sure federal courts fully staffed (Editor's Inbox) ( Mason City Globe Gazette [IA], 11/23/14)
Dean Genth: "I urge Sen. Chuck Grassley to use his position on the Senate Judiciary Committee to make sure our federal courts are fully staffed. Federal judges hear cases that directly affect the lives of everyday Americans, including cases addressing clean air and water,... Many of the pending nominees are the result of bipartisan agreement."

Letter of the Day: A chance to address judicial backlog (Tampa Tribune [FL] , 11/13/14)
Mark Ferrulo: "there is a critical opportunity for senators to demonstrate that they can set aside differences and get the people’s work done. How? By moving quickly to fill the remaining judicial vacancies that have hamstrung our court system. Federal courts rule on cases that directly impact our lives, including cases addressing pollution, immigration, bankruptcy, equal rights, access to health care and more. But without adequate staffing, cases get backlogged, and justice cannot be served. There are more than 60 judicial openings across our federal court system, and many of these vacancies have languished for months or even years due to partisan gridlock and obstruction. Across the country, these vacancies are seriously impacting citizens’ ability to have their day in court."

Coastal damages lawsuit goes on, as it should: Editorial (Times-Picayune [LA] , 11/05/14)
"Ironically, the Jindal administration is suing the Army Corps of Engineers for wetlands destroyed during the four decades the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet was in operation. The state wants $3 billion for restoring the marshes. So, it's OK to sue a federal agency for destroying wetlands but not oil and gas companies? Both arguably are responsible for damage. Why give one group a pass and go after the other?"

Editorial: Mountaintop removal gets another strike against it (Independent [Ashland, KY], 10/23/14)
"Most of us know the massive damage mountaintop removal mining does to the environment by leveling hilltops to get to the coal and then leaving the site without trees and top soil. In addition, thousands of miles of waterways are buried under tons of rock, totally destroying them. That alone should be more than enough for federal and state regulatory agencies to greatly limit mountaintop mining ... Most of us know the massive damage mountaintop removal mining does to the environment by leveling hilltops to get to the coal and then leaving the site without trees and top soil. In addition, thousands of miles of waterways are buried under tons of rock, totally destroying them. That alone should be more than enough for federal and state regulatory agencies to greatly limit mountaintop mining"

EDITORIAL: The dirty effects of mountaintop removal mining (Washington Post, 10/22/14)
"Burning coal has a host of drawbacks: It produces both planet-warming carbon dioxide and deadly conventional air pollutants. Removing layers of mountaintop in the extraction process aggravates the damage. The displaced earth must go somewhere, typically into adjoining valleys, affecting the streams that run through them. The dust that’s blown into the air on mountaintop removal sites, meanwhile, is suspected to be unhealthy for mine workers and nearby communities.... The Clean Water Act gives the government wide authority over industrial operations that change rivers and streams.... the Obama administration once again prevailed in court, beating back another industry challenge. ... The EPA is right to move more firmly to protect health and environment."

EDITORIAL: Road kill: Overconsumption threatens the world’s wildlife (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [PA], 10/03/14)
"World leaders need to take seriously the WWF’s call for international talks on sustainable development goals and actions, including on climate change, that will reduce the depletion of resources and the harm to Earth’s wildlife."

EDITORIAL: Mr. Obama’s Pacific Monument (New York Times, 10/02/14)
"President Obama last week, in addition to everything else on his plate, created the largest marine preserve in the world....at a time when the world’s oceans are threatened by rampant pollution, overfishing and climate change, the benefits of Mr. Obama’s decision will be profound,...out there beyond Honolulu, living in splendid isolation, are sharks, rays and jacks; coconut crabs; moosehorn, staghorn and brain corals; humpback and melon-headed whales; green and hawksbill turtles; bottlenose and spinner dolphins; and untold millions of boobies, curlews and plovers. All these, and countless other living things, will be better off."

Editorial: Climate Change; A Continuing Threat to the Health of the World’s Population (Journal of the American Medical Association, 09/22/14)
Dr. Howard Bauchner, editor-in-chief and Dr. Phil Fontanarosa, executive editor: " it is critical to recognize that climate change poses the same threat to health as the lack of sanitation, clean water, and pollution did in the early 20th century. Understanding and characterizing this threat and educating the medical community, public, and policy makers are crucial if the health of the world’s population is to continue to improve during the latter half of the 21st century."

EDITORIAL: A bill not vetoed (Greensboro News & Record [NC], 09/11/14)
"Yet, dealing with coal ash is a long-term project. The governor should propose the next steps and work more productively with the legislature in 2015 to do a better job of protecting North Carolina’s water from further harm."

Editorial: State learning lessons from coal ash spill? (Gaston Gazette [NC], 09/10/14)
" If nothing else, the coal ash spill in Rockingham County has forced state regulators and politicians to take a look at how things are done when it comes to clean water and other environmental issues. It wasn’t a pretty sight from the start....the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources announced that it’s moving to fine Duke Energy for pollution leaching into groundwater from two unlined ash dumps ... Perhaps the state is learning some lessons. We hope so."