Heidi Heitkamp Was A Leader In Regulation Through Litigation
Earlier this week I wrote about a fundraiser put on by North Dakota’s Lignite Energy Council for liberal Democrat Senate candidate Heidi Heitkamp. I posted some video of Heitkamp’s speech from that campaign in which she stressed that she doesn’t share the same anti-fossil fuel stance as the rest of her policy. She also derided the “regulation through litigation” phenomena, and used it as basis for a call for a national energy policy.
A reader picked up on something interesting about those comments. Here’s the video again:
From the reader:
In her fundraising speech at Basin, Heitkamp protests, We have regulation by litigation! We have greenhouse gas policy by litigation!
Yes, in that she’s right. But who’s to blame?
The key case in this expansion of federal regulation of greenhouse gas is Massachusetts v. EPA, in which 11 states — that is, attorney generals — joined cities and environmental activists to force the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and other vehicle emissions for their impact on global warming.
The Supreme Court then said, yes, EPA can regulate under the Clean Air Act. And of course, the agency seized the authority.
What’s the model for the litigation? The tobacco lawsuits, in which state attorneys general, including the prominent Ms. Heitkamp, ganged up to sue the manufacturers.
In other words, now that Heitkamp is running for the US Senate she derides “regulation through litigation.” But back before she was a candidate, she was all for “regulation through litigation” in her attacks on the tobacco industry.
Not only is Heitkamp not credible on this issue, she’s a hypocrite.Tags: election 2012, epa, Heidi Heitkamp, North Dakota News, Rick Berg