Public Policy by Lawsuit, bad Idea

Two recent Court Rulings set a bad precedent when it comes to formulating public policy.

1) A Court Ordered Grizzly Bears remain on the endangered species list.

This is despite the fact that the Grizzly Bear population had increased dramatically since they were put on the list. The Court also made the ruling, despite the fact that the regulatory body given the responsibility for listing endangered species found that the bears were no longer endangered.

What happened? "Environmental Groups" found a friendly judge to rule the way they wanted, despite any information to the contrary. He found they were threatened by Global Warming.

Federal Courts are not the place to set this kind of public policy. Judges do not have to face the negative implications of their rulings. Nor is there a guarantee that the judge making the ruling has all the pertinent facts. Far too often they are only going to get the argument from the side pushing for Government action.


2) A Federal Court ruled that states could sue Utilities over emissions.

What is happening here is that the Liberal States (i.e. California) is now suing Electric Companies that burn coal in other states.

In other words, these states are trying to regulate energy production in another state by using the federal judicial system. And if you need a reminder, California's energy policies have resulted in that state facing rolling black-outs in the past. Now they are trying to do the same for other states.

The people in these states do not get a say in who runs the state of California, and the state of California should have no say in how those states are run. Ever heard of taxation without representation?


The Federal Courts have now given us regulation without representation.