Supreme Court: Government Can Regulate Breathing

Yes, that's correct. Thanks to a runaway Supreme Court, still tilted left by liberal justices, it has determined that the federal government now actually has the right to regulate how and when you breathe.

Court cases around the country had been held up to await the decision in this case. Among them is a challenge to the environmental agency’s refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, now pending in the federal appeals court here. Individual states, led by California, are also moving aggressively into what they have seen as a regulatory vacuum.

Human and animal respiration takes in oxygen and emits Carbon Dioxide.

In animal physiology, respiration is the transport of oxygen from the ambient air to the tissue cells and the transport of carbon dioxide in the opposite direction.

By classifying Carbon Dioxide as an air pollutant and mandating that the EPA regulate its discharge, they have however unwittingly and stupidly, supplied precedent for government to actually regulate the air you breathe, okay, actually the by product of breathing that you discharge - same difference as a matter of fact.

The point isn't if the federal government would ever implement such a silly regulation - the point is that a group of five unelected, aging to the point of senility in some cases, individuals have reached into the Constitution and discovered something not a single founding Father would have ever imagined being there - the right of the federal government to regulate human breath.

Are any of these justices scientists? Do you really believe a single one possesses the expertise to knowledgeably hold court on Global Warming? Is there anything at all in the Constitution that would allow for management of our environment and any environmental concerns by a Supreme Court, allegedly limited to interpreting the Constitution? The answer to all of those questions is no.

Yet, here we find ourselves today in a nation founded and grown strong most primarily on the concept of individual freedom and we are watching a Federal Government, facilitated by outrageously liberal courts, grow, tax, confiscate property without restraint and with no genuine regard for the founding document, let alone it's original intent.

Government is ultimately the problem and we are fast approaching a point where no democratic effort can correct our course, particularly as there is no democratic option for controlling a runaway Supreme Court. Unfortunately, even allegedly conservative governments have shown that they have no qualms with growing government while taking away more and more of our freedom. If you think government can right itself, I'd suggest you not hold your breath. But then, given the courts ruling on carbon dioxide, there could come a day when you have no choice.

Sadly, good Americans may one day find themselves at a point where only revolution will be able to secure their so-called inalienable rights.

Comments

[scarshapedstar]

Which would you rather have in your room: a human being, cat, mouse, or ant farm... or a belching smokestack? After all... "same difference".

It's been a long time since we had a Riehlly Stupid™ post like this one...

[southdakotaboy]

Look on the bright side guys maybe we can have the EPA order the Dems to all stop breathing. I mean with all the protest rallies and committee meetings that they are holding they have got to be just rampping up the carbon dioxide levels. Is that to much to hope for?

[Zifnab]

hehe. "Whaaaa! The Supreme Court doesn't agree with me!"

If one of the other justices kickes it, I'm sure you'll be a great nomination to replace them, Dan. The rapier wit of Thomas, the piercing analytical skills of Scalia, and the high school legal expertise of Harriet Miers.

[Victor]

Global warming deniers are funny as hell. The same guys who have no problem believing in WMDs don't believe in global warming.

Thankfully the GOP and its mouthbreathing constituents are on the wane.

[Zifnab]

Victor, would you say they're in their final throes?

[Doc]

We get the gov't we deserve. For generations we have not been teaching our children of their inalienable rights nor from Whom they come. We have allowed for decades a thoroughly corrupted method of Constitutional 'interpretation' (read: make it say anything we want it to say). No, there is no 'democratic' solution; democracy is the problem. The majority finally fought their way through the roadblocks, put in their way by the wisdom of the Founders, that were designed to keep the majority from doing whatever they wanted to, rather than what was wise. If and when demography kicks in such that the philosophical naturalists die off sufficiently, we might be able to regain some or all of the safeguards in the Constitution. The process might be sped up if the man in the tall hat bends over a major NYC, then again it might not. It might be nipped in the bud if the demographics of Muslims who take the Koran seriously enough to want to kill infidels qua infidels kicks in fast enough to beat the demographics of serious Christians. I predict an interesting if not particularly enjoyable next few decades.

[southdakotaboy]

I bet we could solve Global warming if the EPA would just tell Victor and Zifnab to stop contributing so much carbon dioxide.

[ET]

hey, guess what. some conservatives can see shades of gray. I have no problem with this decision...toxic emmissions should be regulated. in fact, I would argue that reasonble regulation sparks commercial innovation in a free market.

This issue is one of degrees (pun intended). Mr. Gore has been widely discredited recently as an alarmist and a hypocrite for brazenly positioning himself as the savior of the very fucking planet for his own enrichment. He is an idiot. Let the science continue to play out and make reasonable policy decisions and we can put this one behind us.

[templar knight]

"Victor, would you say they're in their final throes?"

Hahahahahahaaaa! Ziffy is now so desperate he is talking to his own sock puppet. This is hilarious. Goatherd on, Ziffy!

[Zifnab]

But, ET, they want to regulate our breathing! If we emit as much greenhouse gases as a coal-fired powerplant, the EPA will want us to install massive filters on our windpipes!

Seriously, how can you give Gore flak for being alarmist in the face of this sort of stupidity?

[Hard Right]

I love it. Dan posts this to piss off moonbats and they fall for it-like always. Thanks Dan.

[southdakotaboy]

Now if they would all just be good little libs and stop causing so much global warming by breathing all would be well.

[TheSpartan]

The SC is still liberal?

[LOL]

u realize the court is actually conservative...

scalia, thomas, alito, roberts, and kennedy are all "conservative" justices. That's a majority.

[templar knight]

No, LOL, we don't realize that the Court is still conservative to anyone but a flaming liberal like you. Kennedy is not conservative, but is classified as a moderate by most people.

[Zifnab]

"scalia, thomas, alito, roberts, and kennedy are all "conservative" justices. That's a majority."

Souter doesn't count, because Bush 41 appointed him as a super-secret liberal in disguise.

[LOL]

did u know that 7 of the justices of the current court were appointed by Republican presidents? Only Ginsburg and Breyer were appointed by a Dem (Clinton).

Perhaps it is you wingers who are "flaming" and out of the mainstream?

[templar knight]

LOL, yeah, we know, much to our chagrin. Embarrassing to say the least. Which just goes to prove you had better look deep into a guy's character, or in the case of a liberal, lack thereof, before appointing someone to the Court.

[LOL]

nah, it's just proof of how reactionary and fringe the warblogger crowd has become

[Zifnab]

No kidding. When your own Justices don't agree with you, that's typically a bad sign for the legal basis your party stands on.

[templar knight]

This was a decision on the war? LOL, you and Ziffy must be on the wrong thread, but since you say the same thing over and over, hey, what does it matter?

[Hard Right]

Yes, how dare we disagree with the SCOTUS. Funny, I remember the lefties being angry with multiple SCOTUS decisions when they didn't like the result. As usual the hypocrite left thinks only they have the right to free speech.

[Herr Morgenholz]

Sad. Not the decision. I've come to expect such things from a court that has Ruth Ginsburg drooling on the lectern. I mean the comments. The Age of Reason is over, the Magna Carta and Enlightenment discarded, all to make a couple of juvenile fucks like some commenters here fell like "They Left a Better World". Utterly oblivious.

[templar knight]

Herr Morgenholz, the Age of Reason was destroyed in WWI, and it is sad. But we have to do the best we can with what is left to us. The "Decline of the West" is sad to see, and what is coming from the East is another Dark Age. Many in the West are complicit in its coming, they just don't have the sense to recognize it. Worse than sad, really, criminal would be more descriptive.

[LOL]

i never had a problem with u disagreeing with them, just characterizing the court as "liberal" when it's more conservative than the Rehnquist, Burger, and Warren courts is just a sign of how outside of reality Dan is

[LOL]

I get it now. I was looking up the history of the court on some sites, and I've concluded the current court is the most conservative since the Taft court. I.e. The most conservative court since ~1930. And then I thought: "Shouldn't you cons feel blessed to live in an era of such a conservative court? Why don't you have any perspective?"

But then I had a realization. Justices' politics often differs from politicians and voters. Alot of justices have respect for the rule of law, which much to the chagrin of wingers here, is a liberal idea.

[Buzzy]

What a lot of people don't understand is that although the majority of the justices were appointed by Republicans not all Republicans are conservatives. Very few people consider GW Bush conservative and fewer still consider "Daddy" Bush conservative. Some would like to call them "liberal" Republicans but I tend to think of them as "New World Order" Republicans. On the other side I view Gore and his ilk as "New World Order" Democrats and honestly it's hard to tell the difference.

We have a SCOTUS that approved of the Government seizing land and giving it to private companies who the Government deems can utilize the property better than the legal owner. Not a conservative ideal in any sense of the term at all.

On another level you have to look at Bush's North American Trade Union program which is nothing more than Carter's NAFTA (Bush even uses NAFTA architect Robert Pastor just as Carter did).

Bush's old Clean Air Initiative used pollution offsets (Gore never had an original idea in his life) so US companies could pollute all they want if they pay the big bucks.

Only the Neo Cons and the Neo Libs see judicial activism as a good thing and sadly it will probably take a revolution to uproot them from power so that common sense (on both sides) can again take over.

[nowinger]

Only the wingers could consider the idea that the EPA can regulate air born pollutants under the federal clean air act as a liberal or activist interpretation of the law.

[templar knight]

nowinger, to me it was a stretch to include carbon dioxide in the airborn pollutants category, as carbon dioxide has never been considered a pollutant, per se, as it is a natural substance in our atmosphere. Frankly, I haven't read the decision, and I don't know exactly what the reasoning was, so I won't comment on that, just say I consider the decision to have unforeseen consequences. Monetarily.

[nowinger]

Plenty of naturally occuring substances are toxic and highly regulated. Again, your argument is dishonest. The reason Bush doesn't want the EPA to admit it has the power to regulate carbon emissions is because he doesn't want to regulate carbon emissions, PERIOD. He is a global warming denier and based on his track record on the environment, doesn't find conservation of animals, plants or habitat to be a worthwhile endeavor for the government.

[Phoenix]

What baloney, Nowinger. Bush has done plenty, and the private sector is doing plenty, as well. Just because Bush doesn't do a rap and dance to Al Gore doesn't mean he's ignoring everything. And just for your information - *Every* solution brings with it huge problems. One doesn't snap their fingers and make this stuff go away.

Why don't you go wanking on some Chinese and Indian blogs. China builds a new coal-burning plant a week. India is hot on China's tail. I guess you figure Bush should carry their water? Go do some serious research.

[MegaTroopX]

Surely this is an April Fool's joke?

[LOL]

hmm there was a time when overruling Plessy v Ferguson was considered "liberal activism". It's not always bad kids

[LOL]

interesting point Phoenix

Per capita greenhouse gas emissions by country: CO2e t/person

India 2001: 1.34
China 2003: 3.05
US 2003: 24.09

No, I'd say he's complaining in the right place.

[Phoenix]

Total carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels by region:

North America : 7.5 Billions of metric tons.
Central and SA : 1.5
Africa : 1.5
Europe : 4.4
Middle East : 1.7
Eurasia : 2.3
Asia and Oceania : 9.1

"No matter how aggressively the U.S. tackles its carbon problem, the global outlook hinges on the coal-fired economies of the world's two looming giants: China and India. Between 1990 and 2004, envergy consumption rose 37% in India and 53% in China. Beijing is building new coal-fired power plants at the startling rate of one every week. While the most technologically sophisticated coal plants operate at almost 45% efficiency, China's top out at just 33%."

TIME , April 9, 2007

Nice job picking out what you wanted, LOL. You are transparent and shameless.

[Phoenix]

By the way, LOL, are you capable of futuristic thinking?

[nowinger]

So, China is going to increase carbon emissions and that means we don't need to do anything ourselves. Typical winger thinking. Same logic behind 'terrorists behead people' so its okay for us to torture suspected terrorists. Best thing to do is sit back and wait another 50 years or so until even the global warming deniers will have to admit the truth, the only downside is that 50 more years of the status quo may put saving a good portion of life on the planet out of reach.

[LOL]

it's like this phoenix:

If we're going to have a global climate regime, the only sensible measure is to have a per capita emissions ceiling. I think, that's the only criteria you could get all the major states to agree to.

So, we need to lower overall emissions, where do you think that ceiling will be? I would guess it would be substantially below 24 t/person. China is increasing, but right now only emits about ~60% of what the US emits despite having a population ~430% of the US's. Will china's overall emissions take over the US's? yes and it's only natural for having such a larger population. Will this happen in our lifetime? doubtful, just look at the mathematics involved. And their per capita emissions may never overcome ours.