A one-sided, front page story on the appeals court's decision
Yes, on Saturday the Intelligencer reported that the "Court Puts ‘Waters Of U.S.’ Definition on Hold." Rather than printing the more-balanced AP report on the decision, Ian Hicks wrote a clearly biased account that featured four supporters of the decision without mentioning anyone who disagreed. In a ten-paragraph story, here's the breakdown:
2 paragraphs devoted to explaining the decision,
3+ paragraphs for the thoughts of Robert Murray of Murray Energy (of course),
1+ paragraphs to Senator Shelley Moore Capito,
2 paragraphs to Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine,
1 paragraph to Representative David McKinley, and
0 paragraphs to anyone who disagree with the decision.
Yes, another "fair and balanced" EPA front-page story from the Intelligencer.
"Affordable electricity," "onerous federal overreach," and "radical environmentalists"-- it must be an Intelligencer editorial
Yes, it is an Intelligencer editorial. This one cheering the federal appeals court's 2-1 decision which delayed the EPA's implementation until the court could decide if the EPA had jurisdiction. The Saturday editorial praised and then quoted West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey who was part of a group of attorney generals from coal states that pressed the case. According to Morrisey, the case was
a critical victory in our fight against this onerous federal overreach.
A victory? It seems to me that a victory would have been if the court had ruled that the EPA had no jurisdiction. As the AP story (that the "newspaper" didn't run) states:
In a 2-1 ruling, a panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati put the regulations on hold nationwide until the court decides whether it has jurisdiction to consider lawsuits against them.
The editorial thinks that all this will be solved when we elect a new president who will be
one who pays more attention to the well-being of Americans than to radical environmentalists and other special interests.
The writer needs to check his polls -- a significant number of voters in both parties (not just Democrats and the "radical environmentalists") now believe that something must be done about climate change. For example, last week the New York Times featured a Republican-sponsored poll of Republican voters that concluded that:
A majority of Republicans — including 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans — believe the world’s climate is changing and that mankind plays some role in the change, according to a new survey conducted by three prominent Republican pollsters.
The results echo a number of other recent surveys concluding that despite the talk of many of the party’s candidates, a significant number of Republicans and independent voters are inclined to support candidates who would back some form of climate action.