Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

FOX News’ Faulkner Distorts Facts Of Supreme Court EPA Case And Coincidentally Casts Bush Administration In More Favorable Light

Reported by Ellen - April 3, 2007 -

It’s hard to believe someone as dull as Harris Faulkner could so often squeeze propaganda into her brief news break during each night's Hannity & Colmes. But once again she distorted the truth in an apparent effort to make the Bush administration look good. Last night (4/2/07), Faulkner misrepresented the position of the Bush administration in a way that just happened to take the sting out of the Supreme Court rebuke in its decision that the EPA must regulate car emissions and greenhouse gases. With video.

Here’s how Faulkner reported on the case which, by the way, was not discussed on Hannity & Colmes.

"The Supreme Court ruling car emissions and greenhouse gases are air pollution and the federal government must regulate them. In the 5 to 4 decision, the Justices criticized the Bush Administration for refusing to do so. The Bush Administration saying it just was not sure whether it had a legal authority."

The Bush administration was “just not sure whether it had the legal authority?” Not according to FOXNews.com. Last November, it reported,

“The Bush administration argued in court papers that the EPA lacks the power to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Even if it had such authority, the EPA still would not use it at this point because of uncertainty surrounding the issue of global warming, the administration said.”

Similarly, the none-too-liberal Christian Science Monitor reported thusly:

In a major victory for environmentalists, the US Supreme Court on Monday rejected the Bush administration's view that the EPA has discretion to decide when and how to best respond to international environmental threats. The vote was 5 to 4.

Instead, the high court said laws passed by Congress to protect the environment require the EPA to swing into action to assess environmental threats that jeopardize human health and safety.

"Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation," writes Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority. He says the agency had offered no reasonable explanation to avoid the clear instructions of the Clean Air Act.

How else to perceive Faulkner's novel view of the Bush administration's position other than as a way to defend them?