Nine states sue Bush over fuel efficiency

zakur

Illuminator
Z
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
3,264
Nine states sue Bush over fuel efficiency

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Nine states have sued the administration of President George W. Bush for lenient automotive fuel economy standards that they say worsen an energy crunch and contribute to air pollution and climate change.

The lawsuit says that the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has failed to meet federal laws requiring government to determine the impact of regulation on fuel conservation and the environment.

[...]

In March, the Bush administration approved a 1.9 mile-per-gallon increase in the standards for sport utility vehicles, minivans and pickups -- all in the light truck class that includes big gas guzzlers -- to 24.1 mpg between 2008 and 2011. It also rewrote the rules for calculating how far light trucks must go on a gallon of gasoline.

But the lawsuit, joined by the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont, says the move included language that could "create incentives to build larger, less fuel-efficient models" and attempts to pre-empt a California law requiring a reduction of greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions.
Click to expand...
 
Ah, but that would make the restrictions their fault instead of the Bush's fault. He make us!

It's getting close to the midterms. I expect to see a lot more of these suits (which will go absolutely nowhere legally)
 
HeavyAaron said:
Yet another peice to make me go "huh?"

States sueing the Fed for NOT taking away state power? Or did it not occur to those states that they can, in fact, pass any emissions and fuel economy standards they like (as even one of the nine states, CA, has done a few times.)

Aaron
Click to expand...
It's every bit as stupid as when the states sued tobacco companies a few years back. Sure, the states could have just raised taxes on tobacco and kept 100% of the revenue, but why do that when you can hire politically connected law firms to take a slam-dunk case and keep 30% of the award?

It's politics over common sense.
 
Rob Lister said:
It actually isn't like that wildcat.
Click to expand...
It's a stupid lawsuit to further the politics of the party in charge of those states, or at least the AG of those states. In that respect, they are similar.

It sure as hell isn't about what is in the best interests of the people of those states.
 
In fairness, one of the allegations of the lawsuit is that the federal government is constructing an argument that fuel efficiency standards are solely under the jurisdiction of the feds, not the states (which argument is probably true).

That said, the news story is too much of an awful hash to evaluate the suit fairly either way. I'll wait 'till I can find the suit itself online.
 
WildCat said:
It's a stupid lawsuit to further the politics of the party in charge of those states, or at least the AG of those states. In that respect, they are similar.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're right. I didn't think the two equated because...fact is, the states won in their suits against the tobacco companies. I don't think they can win here, or even intend to win here. it is politics, nothing else. It may pass muster with the local courts (simply because of certain court make-ups) but as soon as it gets federal, it will fail and be thrown out.

At least until the Dems get in charge again...and then there will be no need.
 
WildCat said:
It's a stupid lawsuit to further the politics of the party in charge of those states, or at least the AG of those states. In that respect, they are similar.
Click to expand...

You made me curious, so I looked up the AG's for those eight states. Although the Governors are divided 5-3 Republican Majority, the AG's (which in many if not all states is an elected position) are Democrats, as is all but one of the sixteen legislative houses. Just FYI.

It sure as hell isn't about what is in the best interests of the people of those states.
Click to expand...

That will require further research and pondering on my part.
 
manny said:
That said, the news story is too much of an awful hash to evaluate the suit fairly either way. I'll wait 'till I can find the suit itself online.
Click to expand...
Sound thinking. I smell a Constitutional can-of-worms that will serve to further enrich the legal profession.
 
Hutch said:
You made me curious, so I looked up the AG's for those eight states. Although the Governors are divided 5-3 Republican Majority, the AG's (which in many if not all states is an elected position) are Democrats, as is all but one of the sixteen legislative houses. Just FYI.
Click to expand...
That's intriguing. I don't know much about state-level US politics. Is it common to have Governors who "co-habit" with opposition legislatures? Does the national scene have influence on gubernatorial voting that it doesn't have on the local legislature?
 
CapelDodger said:
That's intriguing. I don't know much about state-level US politics. Is it common to have Governors who "co-habit" with opposition legislatures? Does the national scene have influence on gubernatorial voting that it doesn't have on the local legislature?
Click to expand...
The best answer to that is "sort of". It really depends on which particular state we're talking about, and which offices. Typically, the legislatures of the states are closer to the local community than the national legislature. The office of State Governor is highly variable, and it's certainly not unheard of for the majority parties in the state house and senate to be different from the Governor's party. The gubernatorial race seems to be a fairly even balance between local and national influences; though, again, that really depends on the state. Some states have a dominant party that is rarely out of power; others shift power back and forth pretty regularly. A few have even elected third-party candidates; though their politics tended to veer fairly close to the majority parties in the legislature.
 
CapelDodger said:
That's intriguing. I don't know much about state-level US politics. Is it common to have Governors who "co-habit" with opposition legislatures? Does the national scene have influence on gubernatorial voting that it doesn't have on the local legislature?
Click to expand...

In terms of organization, the state legislature and executive branchs are basically like mini versions of national elections complete with seperate state senates and houses of representatives (Nebraska is the notable exception with only a single legislative body). So depending on the state, it can be quite common for the two bodies to be controlled by different parties.

One primary difference is that many (if not the vast majority) of states also have electable "cabinet" positions, so whereas an attorney general of a Presidential cabinet is definitely a political appointment and likely to be of the same party as the President, governors and state attorney generals can also be from opposing parties.

As for the national scene influencing gubernatorial voting, that's mostly a candidate selection thing within the party. The voting is mostly on state issues, but since the governor does interact with other states and to some degree the national scene through his party, they are kind of the small time equivalent of the president for their state like the President is to international affairs.

So while I'd say there are some definite practical differences, for the most part there are 50 mini-reflections of the national system of governance overall.

The actual politics can vary greatly though and the party influence considerably weaker in some cases. In my home state of Minnesota, I've witnessed two governors that did not have official endorsements from Democrats or Republicans.
 
HeavyAaron said:
Yet another peice to make me go "huh?"

States sueing the Fed for NOT taking away state power? Or did it not occur to those states that they can, in fact, pass any emissions and fuel economy standards they like (as even one of the nine states, CA, has done a few times.)

Aaron
Click to expand...


Actually, I believe this is incorrect. To head off every state passing its own, different emissions standards, the Feds stepped in and let California set their own, and that was it. Now other states have one choice, California, or everybody else's.

And that's fairly reasonable, since each state passing their own emissions laws makes for a nightmare of regulation the car companies have to follow. Historically, states use their own power to pass laws not for the purpose of protecting their consumers (though that is what is claimed rhetorically) but actually for the purpose of getting in the way of foreign (i.e. from some other state) companies in favor of domestic (in that state) producers.

Meat quality standards was one such thing where states decreased rat hair content and whatnot "to protect the consumer", then feign outrage when the Feds reverse the decision, when it's all really about protecting their own meat farmers and butchers. See also Clinton and very expensive arsenic-in-water standards, passed seconds before he left office for the purpose of making Bush take a hit one way or the other.

Politicians, can't live with 'em, they need to be kicked in the balls on a regular basis by machinery.
 
Thanks, luchog and Furious.

US parties are much looser, less ideological groupings than they are in the UK. I guess they have to be if anything's ever going to get done at the state level. (The old Democratic alliance of Southern segregationists and Northern AFL-CIO types struck me as deeply bizarre back in the day.)
 
CapelDodger said:
Thanks, luchog and Furious.

US parties are much looser, less ideological groupings than they are in the UK. I guess they have to be if anything's ever going to get done at the state level. (The old Democratic alliance of Southern segregationists and Northern AFL-CIO types struck me as deeply bizarre back in the day.)
Click to expand...
Yes, a winner-take-all system effectively requires individuals with disparate ideologies to work together to elect compromise candidates that they feel adequately espress their primary concerns, sometimes managing to lobby or trade favours/voting blocks for concessions; whereas with a proportional system such as the UK and Canada have, (as I understand it) they can form minor parties, gain seats, and form coalitions in government, trading votes for concessions.

The effect is, i think, roughly similar either way.
 
luchog said:
Yes, a winner-take-all system effectively requires individuals with disparate ideologies to work together to elect compromise candidates that they feel adequately espress their primary concerns, sometimes managing to lobby or trade favours/voting blocks for concessions; whereas with a proportional system such as the UK and Canada have, (as I understand it) they can form minor parties, gain seats, and form coalitions in government, trading votes for concessions.

The effect is, i think, roughly similar either way.
Click to expand...
The UK doesn't have a proportional system, which is why a proportional system is always the perennial demand of the Third Party (currently the Lib Dems, not the BNP as some reports have it). It has a monarch and an Upper House that defies explanation. Coalition governments are not at all common, though. They mostly appear briefly in the dog-days of a fading Administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom