You are here

Climategate, Wine Regulations and the Jones Act

Daily Update

Title

Climategate, Wine Regulations and the Jones Act

 

1. ENVIRONMENT

A recent report appears to clear scientists involved in the “Climategate” scandal of most wrongdoing.

CEI Expert Available to Comment: Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy Myron Ebell on how this report is not enough to exonerate the Climategate scientists.

“The Muir Russell report is thus a classic example of the establishment circling its wagons to defend itself.  As was pointed out when the committee was appointed, the members are part of the old boys’ network and have several obvious conflicts of interest.”

 

2. HEALTH

Congress sidelines a bill that would have created new restrictions on alcohol shipping and purchasing.

CEI Expert Available to Comment: Director of Risk and Environmental Policy Angela Logomasini on how Congress might still pass sweeping new alcohol regulations. 

“Consumers can only hope bureaucrats will hold on to this letter–and hold up congressional proceedings–forever. But that’s unlikely. First, it’s unclear as to what constitutional problem the bill might have. Congress has authority to regulate commerce, and that includes giving states some powers to do the same. And wholesalers are determined. If this version isn’t quite right, they surely will develop another."

 

3. LEGAL

Factcheck.org argues that the Jones Act has done little to stifle foreign assistance in the oil spill cleanup.

CEI Expert Available to Comment: Senior Attorney Hans Bader argues that the Jones Act does, in fact, discourage international assistance.

“The Jones Act certainly restricts foreign ships and crews in U.S. waters.  A ban or restriction can be a significant barrier even if it seldom leads to formal rejections, by discouraging offers or applications from being made in the first place, or leading to tentative offers being dropped prior to a formal rejection.  The Supreme Court recognized this principle in Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 365-66 (1977).  In that case, it held that even non-applicants could sue an employer for discrimination, where the policy of discrimination discouraged minorities from even applying.”