In a dangerous partial-capitulation to socialists seeking a back-door through which to exert control over the U.S. economy, the Bush administration has chosen to list the polar bear on the threatened species list. The socialists were not satisfied, however, in the administration’s refusal to submit all economic activities to the oversight of a central environmental authority.

“Protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act is a major step forward, but the Bush administration has proposed using loopholes in the law to allow the greatest threat to the polar bear — global warming pollution — to continue unabated,” Andrew Wetzler of the Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement.

John Kostyack of the National Wildlife Federation, while gratified at the listing, saw little practical effect given the limits of Kempthorne’s regulations.

“By denying a direct link between the sources of global warming pollution and the loss of the polar bears’ sea ice habitat, and by denying that the polar bear will be protected from oil and gas development, they’re willing to sit by and let the polar bear go extinct,” Kostyack said by telephone.

…Bill Kovacs of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce praised the decision and its accompanying regulations, calling is a “common sense balancing” between environmental and business concerns.

Without the limiting regulations, Kovacs said, all carbon-emitters in the contiguous United States would have to go through a consultation process, which he said would have literally shut down federal activity overnight.

Of course, lost in this brouhaha is the fact that polar bears are not, as of yet, showing any signs that they are actually threatened:

The government of Nunavut, a territory that is home to most of Canada’s Inuit people and which manages or co-manages some 15,000 polar bears, expressed disappointment in the U.S. decision.

“It is unfortunate the (U.S. government) has decided to disregard facts collected by those who have the greatest contact and longest history with polar bears,” Nunavut Premier Paul Okalik said in a statement. “The truth is that polar bear populations are at near record levels.”

So long as the canard of global warming is bought so easily, it’s clear what is really threatened: freedom.

Following McCain’s speech promising conservative judicial appointments, Jeff Jacoby has written an op-ed criticizing McCain and calling for more judicial activism as the proper role of the judiciary. In order to sustain this case, he first redefines the parameters and terms of the debate to suit his purposes.

IN A SPEECH on the federal judiciary last week, John McCain sounded the familiar conservative call for judges who know their place. “My nominees,” he promised, “will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power.” The judiciary’s moral authority depends on self-restraint, said McCain, and “this authority quickly vanishes when a court presumes to make law instead of apply it.”

The senator emphasized the importance of judicial modesty and deference to the elected branches of government, lamenting that “federal judges today issue rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically.” He criticized Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for not being concerned “when fundamental questions of social policy are preemptively decided by judges instead of by the people and their elected representatives.”

But is it really the proper function of the courts to simply rubber-stamp laws passed by Congress and state legislatures? Is a law presumed constitutional merely because elected officials enacted it? “If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell,” declared Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, a staunch advocate of judicial restraint, “I will help them. It’s my job.”

Notice the not-so-subtle trickery in the question: “is it really the proper function of the courts to simply rubber-stamp laws passed by Congress and state legislatures?” No one has asserted that this is the proper judicial function. Jacoby’s entire argument follows from this straw-man and the conflation of two different ideas: restraint (which regards the role of the judiciary) and passivism (which regards to enthusiasm through which that role is carried out). One does not necessarily lead to another.

The examples he sites are indeed blights on the history of the judiciary. However, all also represent cases where the Constitution was not applied as written, as conservative judicial philosophy advocates.

The framing of the judiciary as the least democratic branch of government, which Jacoby dismisses, is an accurate and salient point. Courts should be deferential to legislatures, but that does not imply they be incapable, or unwilling, to apply the Constitution. The real question is: which Constitution will they apply? The one written by the founding fathers or each judges own personal interpretation of it? Choosing to apply the former does not render a judge passive. One need only look at Justice Scalia, one of the most ardent spokesmen of this argument, to see the veracity of that statement.

It is not that Jacoby’s concerns are entirely unwarranted, but that there is little reason to be so worried at this point in time. The pendulum is so far on activists and flexible constitution side that it’s confusing why Jacoby sees such a need to fret about passivism. I have many issues with Senator McCain, but the judiciary is one instance where he gets it right.

Despite their constant whining over gas prices and U.S. dependency on foreign oil, democrats are continuing to oppose policies which would alleviate the severity both problems.

U.S. Senate rejects offshore drilling expansion

A proposed measure that would have opened the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and some offshore waters to oil drilling and development was defeated in the U.S. Senate with a vote of 56 to 42.

Republican Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Pete Domenici of New Mexico attached an amendment to a flood insurance bill which would have allowed coastal states to get a waiver to allow offshore drilling, but could not muster the necessary 60 votes.

Of course, actually taking steps to solve problems would make it more difficult for democrats to go around stoking hatred of oil companies and their other favorite boogeymen.  Six republicans, including RINO’s Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe along with my own embarassment of a Senator, Mel Martinez, also opposed the measure.

There’s hope for them yet.

In 2001, Democrats in the Legislature pounded Republican plans to start a private school voucher program for poor and predominantly minority kids. They said it was unconstitutional, a drain on public schools, even un-American. In the end, all but one Democrat voted against it.

Times have changed. This year, a bill to vastly expand the same program passed by large margins.

And this time, a third of the Democratic caucus was on board.

“I’m a strong advocate for public school education, and I’m not necessarily a strong advocate for vouchers,” said Rep. Bill Heller, D-St. Petersburg, one of four Tampa Bay-area Democrats to vote yes. But “the bottom line has to be the child. If good things are happening for the child, then you can justify it.”

But don’t you go thinking this means Democrats support freedom in education.

Most Democrats remain wary. Many continue to argue that vouchers hurt public schools —and that this year was the worst possible time for an expansion. Others fear poor and minority kids are being used as a Trojan horse for a more radical agenda: vouchers for all kids.

All students free to pursue a quality education? The horror!

Hat tip: Cato-at-Liberty

I’m a few days late on noting F.A Hayek’s May 8th birthday, but the occasion provides a great opportunity to highlight the continuing relevance of his work. At a time when many in the West believed in the idea of a “democratic socialism,” Friedrich Hayek warned, in The Road To Serfdom, that economic planning of the type advocated by many on the left would inevitably lead to totalitarian dictatorship, on top of being poor economics.

Unfortunately, many leftists today are just as intent on traveling down the road to serfdom as they ever have been. Representative Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) is at the front lines of the liberal war on oil companies. His proposed legislation, the Consumer Reasonable Energy Price Protection Act of 2008, not only imposes an economically damaging windfall profits tax, but creates a Reasonable Profits Board to sit in judgment of private activity and determine how much profit is reasonable for a company to make.

Since Represenative Kanjorski thinks this is a good idea, maybe he’ll like my own proposal: a Qualified Candidates Board. Rather than trusting those pesky voters to determine which public office candidates are qualified, just as he doesn’t trust consumers, the board would be tasked with determining which candidates are allowed to run for office. As its first order of business, I submit the name of Paul Kanjorski as one to be barred from office for his gross economic and political ignorances.

He’s not going to Alaska and Hawaii, of course, or he would see all 60.

There has been much speculation lately regarding Governor of Louisiana and former congressman Bobby Jindal as a possible VP candidate on McCain’s ticket. Jindal is a very popular young conservative with a bright future, but he should not run on this year’s ticket.

The Republican brand is heading down and it’s not the proper time for Jindal to be thrust into a the national spotlight just to be taken down with it. At only 36 years old, Jindal has plenty of time to establish himself. Should he be able to turn around Louisiana, he’ll be in a prime position to lead a new conservative revolution of the kind that Reagan launched on the back of a governorship based on similarly principled ideas.

Thankfully, Jindal sees it the same way and has made clear his intention to stay in Louisiana until the job is done. Here’s wishing him success so he can later bring the same enthusiastic reform and conservative principles to Washington.