Here’s a bizarre Supreme Court case. Several states are suing the EPA for failing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Massachusetts claims its shoreline will suffer if something isn’t done, with a few others jumping on board.

On a gut level, this just seems wrong on so many levels. For one, the EPA is set up by elected officials. If it’s not doing its job — not because of fraud, but because you don’t like its policies — that’s what democracy is for, not the court system.

Two, the EPA is charged with protecting the whole country, not any individual state. It must weigh the economic and environmental impact of its policies on all states. A ruling in the states’ favor would create a lot of catch-22 situations. Industrial states would sue over strict policies, green states would file over lenient ones.

Three, previous courts have been right to strike the suit down. They disagreed on the reasons, but I like all of them: Massachusetts has no right to sue, the 2.5 percent emissions drop the desired policies would create don’t constitute standing, the EPA can refuse to regulate if it pleases.

The whole situation brings out a problem of U.S. federalism: in the system of checks and balances, the courts are basically unchecked. That’s why the states have turned to them. Once a judge is appointed, he can pretty much do whatever he wants, from distorting laws to inventing new constitutional rights. Only in extreme cases is a judge impeached, and the only way to pre-empt absurd rulings is through hard-to-pass constitutional amendments.

I don’t deny the environment is important, and a valid target for government policies. But said policies must come to pass through the democratic process, not through an abuse of the courts.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.