There is so much wrong with Massachusetts v. EPA. Where to begin? The premise of the suit, that the federal government's refusal to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant poses an imminent danger to the states, is completely bogus. The questions earlier this week of several Supreme Court justices, especially Antonin Scalia, suggested that they thought as much. That twelve states are suing the federal government because they don't like the policy of the executive branch smells of sour grapes. Why not run a credible candidate instead? And then there is the Environmental Protection Agency. What right do unelected bureaucrats have in making law? By my count, bureaucrats have been making law for about 120 years. But this doesn't make it right. The general problem underlying most of the specific problems about this case is the assumption that legislative policy should be decided by non-legislative parts of the government. The courts? The executive branch? The EPA? They have no mandate to make law--even when those laws are called "regulations." Alas, the train has perhaps left the station.

I suppose we should stop exhaling then? Ridiculous.