Judge says Bush admin can NOT do as it pleases

Judge says Bush admin can NOT do as it pleases

Summary: But then the federal judge gave the Bush administration until next March to issue a climate-change research plan and its first-ever scientific assessment report on climate change. A possible appeal could drag out the case longer, and thus delay both plan and report.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Legal
6

But then the federal judge gave the Bush administration until next March to issue a climate-change research plan and its first-ever scientific assessment report on climate change. A possible appeal could drag out the case longer, and thus delay both plan and report.

The last research plan was back in 2003, and the last assessment was issued by the Clinton Administration. Of course, the folks in charge have been a little busy with Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina and elections. Besides, there's no sea water in the White House basement yet. And they've all been workin' hard, real hard.

The lawsuit was filed by a bunch of pushy enviornmentalists who seem to think the federal government should do something, or at least write about it.

Topic: Legal

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

6 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • So judges tell the President what to do?

    Gee, I missed that part when learning about the Constitution - as a Political Science major in college.

    Last I heard there were supposed to be 3 EQUAL branches.

    i guess what we really have is 2 branches of government and a "board of overseers" - the judiciary.

    Someday a President is gonna get smart and tell the jusdges to shove their "orders" up their derrier. What are the judges gonna do then?
    j.m.galvin
    • Been done

      Andrew Jackson did that when the US Supreme Court ruled that the forced removal of Indians from the eastern US was illegal. His response was that "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it". I think the Supremes were right, but at least Jackson had the guts to defy the courts openly, instead of covertly.

      That said, Mr. Bush has yet to show that kind of courage and I don't expect it to start now. I assume that there is some sort of statutory requirement that the administration produce the report the court has now ordered, but that the administration, instead of openly challenging the constitutionality or said statute, or asking Congress to repeal it (the last several Congresses would all have likely complied), decided to quietly ignore it instead. Such would be par for the course for this administration.
      John L. Ries
      • Not to defend anyone, but . . .

        Ignoring it would be the proper thing to do, whether it be GW Bush, Reagan, Clinton, or Jackson. Which is what Andrew Jackson did, BTW, he was just very vocal about ignoring it . . .

        Challenging it would be admitting that the courts had SOME say in the matter, which they don't.
        JLHenry
        • I disagree

          My reading of the constitution, including the president's oath of office, suggests that the president has a positive duty to uphold and enforce the constitution ("take care that the laws are faithfully executed"). I suggest this means that he has an obligation to veto any bill presented to him that he thinks is in any way unconstitutional (signing statements are a cop-out) and to actively seek the repeal of any existing law that he thinks is unconstitutional, instead of quietly ignoring it.

          Neither the President, nor any other US government official is free to do as he pleases; he has to follow the law. If he thinks he has to defy the courts because they have wrongly decided a particular issue, then he should have the courage to do it openly and to publicly defend his stance.
          John L. Ries
          • And we . . .

            haven't had a President like that since Reagan . . .

            I also fail to the difference in outcome. At the beginning of our nation, the Supreme Court was CONSTANTLY regarded as something of a joke, since there was no way for them to enforce their decisions . . .And they were treated as a joke as a result. I think some of our current Politicos are beginning to realize that this is largely still the case.

            ANd Upholding the Constitution isn't the issue. The issue is that there is a disagreement over whether or not the court even had jurisdiction in this case. If not, then there is no need to blow this up into a shooting match between the branches. Just ignore it and move on . . .Maybe issue an executive order GIVING the Executive branch an exemption having to follow the law. That would take care of the issue, too.
            JLHenry
    • You should go back and read the Constitution again.

      There are 3 branches and there are checks and balances. An example, only Congress may make a declaration of war, the Executive branch doe not have the right to do that. If both Congress and the Senate (takes both houses) sends a bill that violates the Constitution to the Executive branch and it passes, the law can be overturned by the Judiciary on legal grounds (like say removing your First Amendment rights, though there are already existing limits on that). There is a division of powers between the 3 branches of the (American) government. Go look it up!
      B.O.F.H.