October, 23 2008, 03:00pm EDT

Majority of Voters Oppose Mountaintop Removal Mining in First Nationwide Opinion Poll
Voters feel environment deteriorating, oppose push to repeal Stream Buffer Zone rule
WASHINGTON
In the first nationwide poll on mountaintop removal mining, two
out of three likely voters oppose recent efforts by the Bush
administration to repeal an environmental law known as the Stream
Buffer Zone rule, which prohibits mining activities within 100 feet of
a stream. Upon hearing that "more than 1,200 miles of streams in
Appalachia already have been buried or destroyed by mountaintop removal
coal mining," fully 85% of voters say they are concerned about the
effects of this mining practice.
The practice of mountaintop removal coal mining -- where hundreds of
feet are blown off the tops of mountains to get at thin coal seams, and
the remaining rock and waste is dumped into nearby valleys -- has long
been opposed by many residents of Appalachia. This newest poll, the
first to test voters' views of this practice nationwide, illustrates
that voters in every region of the country are similarly against
mountaintop removal mining.
"Throughout the entire term of the Bush administration, federal
agencies charged with enforcing the law have instead done all they
could to roll back regulations and ignore environmental protections to
allow mountaintop removal mining to continue. But people across the
country recognize what this administration has not: that mountaintop
removal mining is simply wrong," said Joan Mulhern, senior legislative
counsel at Earthjustice. "Voters aren't fooled by attempts to allow
this destruction to continue."
Last week, the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining
(OSM) made the final moves on a proposal to repeal the Stream Buffer
Zone rule, a Reagan-era regulation that prohibits surface coal mining
activities from disturbing areas within 100 feet of permanent and
seasonal streams. OSM is trying to clear the path for more mountaintop
removal mining in Appalachia by allowing streams and headwaters to be
permanently buried with mining waste and "overburden."
The nationwide survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted by two firms,
Lake Research Partners and Bellwether Research and Consulting on behalf
of Earthjustice, the Sierra Club and Appalachian Center for the Economy
and Environment, shows overwhelming opposition to the changes to the
Stream buffer Zone rule. Fully 66% of those polled oppose the repeal of
the protections for streams, with nearly half (49%) who "strongly
oppose" the repeal.
"The level of public opposition to this rule change is remarkable,
until one considers the larger context: even in a tough economy,
Americans see environmental protections as an economic boon by a 2:1
margin," said Daniel Gottoff of Lake Research Partners.
"These poll results make very clear that people think we should not
sacrifice streams by allowing them to be filled in with mining waste,"
said Ed Hopkins, director of Sierra Club's Environmental Quality
Program. "The Environmental Protection Agency can and should protect
these streams by stopping the Office of Surface Mining's plan to gut
the Stream Buffer Zone rule."
"We have known for a long while that residents of West Virginia
oppose mountaintop removal and are against weakening environmental laws
that are meant to protect our mountains, streams, and communities from
this devastation," said Margaret Janes of the Appalachian Center for
the Economy and the Environment. "It is heartening to see now that many
Americans across the country are aware of the enormous destruction
being caused in our region and want to see an end to the practice
before it is too late."
"Americans make it very clear that, despite concerns they have about
the economy and our dependence on foreign oil, they do not want key
environmental protections rolled back for quick, cheap energy
production," said Christine L. Matthews of Bellwether Research and
Consulting. "Voters believe environmental protections -- such as the
Stream Buffer Zone Rule -- are, in fact, beneficial to the economy, and
play a critical role in protecting our water, air, and natural
surroundings."
The poll results showed that:
- A majority of American voters believes the environment in the
United States is deteriorating. Fully 55% say the quality of the
environment has gotten worse in recent years. Another quarter believes
the environment has stayed about the same and only 18 percent believe
the environment has improved. - By more than a 2:1 margin, voters believe environmental
protections are good for the economy. Voters categorically reject the
argument that environmental protections are bad for jobs and
business -- a common refrain of the Bush administration, as well as oil
and mining companies. A plurality (47%) believe environmental
protections are good for the economy and another 23% believe such
protections have no impact on the economy. Only 20% of Americans
believe environmental protections are bad for the economy. - Two-thirds of American voters oppose the Bush
administration's effort to repeal the Stream Buffer Zone Rule. Fully
66% oppose repeal, including roughly half (49%) who "strongly oppose"
repealing the rule, which for 25 years has protected our nation's water
resources from toxic debris caused by mountaintop removal coal mining.
Only two in ten (20%) support the Bush administration's effort to gut
this critical safeguard (just 8% support it strongly), and another 14%
are unsure. - Opposition to Bush's effort to repeal the Stream Buffer Zone
Rule is both broad and deep, transcending traditional partisan,
regional, and demographic divides. Majorities of all political parties
oppose repealing the rule, as do strong majorities of men (62%) and
women (69%), college-educated and non college-educated voters (65% for
each), and voters in all four corners of the country (74% in the
Northeast, 64% in the Midwest, 64% in the South, and 64% in the West). - Finally, voters also report high levels of concern over
water quality and take a firm stand against further destruction of
America's streams. Upon hearing that "more than 1,200 miles of streams
in Appalachia have already been buried or destroyed by mountaintop
removal coal mining, with another 1,000 miles projected for burial and
destruction in the next ten years," fully 86% of voters say they are
concerned about the effects of mountaintop removal, including a 60%
majority who are very concerned.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
Asked If He Must Uphold the US Constitution, Trump Says: 'I Don't Know'
"I'm not a lawyer," the president said in a newly aired interview.
May 04, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump refused in an interview released Sunday to affirm that the nation's Constitution affords due process to citizens and noncitizens alike and that he, as president, must uphold that fundamental right.
"I don't know, I'm not a lawyer," Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker, who asked if the president agrees with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement that everyone on U.S. soil is entitled to due process.
When Welker pointed to the Fifth Amendment—which states that "no person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"—Trump again replied that he's unsure and suggested granting due process to the undocumented immigrants he wants to deport would be too burdensome.
"We'd have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials," Trump said, echoing a sentiment that his vice president expressed last month.
Asked whether he needs to "uphold the Constitution of the United States as president," Trump replied, "I don't know."
Watch:
WELKER: The 5th Amendment says everyone deserves due process
TRUMP: It might say that, but if you're talking about that, then we'd have to have a million or two million or three million trials pic.twitter.com/FMZQ7O9mTP
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 4, 2025
Trump, who similarly deferred to "the lawyers" when asked recently about his refusal to bring home wrongly deported Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia, has unlawfully cited the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly remove undocumented immigrants from the U.S. without due process. Federal agents have also arrested and detained students, academics, and a current and former judge in recent weeks, heightening alarm over the administration's authoritarian tactics.
CNNreported Friday that the administration has "been examining whether it can label some suspected cartel and gang members inside the U.S. as 'enemy combatants' as a possible way to detain them more easily and limit their ability to challenge their imprisonment."
"Trump has expressed extreme frustration with federal courts halting many of those migrants' deportations, amid legal challenges questioning whether they were being afforded due process," the outlet added. "By labeling the migrants as enemy combatants, they would have fewer rights, the thinking goes."
Some top administration officials have publicly expressed disdain for the constitutional right to due process. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, wrote in a social media post last month that "the judicial process is for Americans" and "immediate deportation" is for undocumented immigrants.
The New Republic's Greg Sargent wrote in a column Saturday that "Miller appears to want Trump to have the power to declare undocumented immigrants to be terrorists and gang members by fiat; to have the power to absurdly decree them members of a hostile nation's invading army, again by fiat; and then to have quasi-unlimited power to remove them, unconstrained by any court."
"The more transparency we have gained into the rot of corruption and bad faith at the core of this whole saga, the worse it has come to look," Sargent continued. "Trump himself is exposing it all for what it truly is: the stuff of Mad Kings."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Republicans Set to Give Self-Described 'DOGE Person' Keys to Social Security Agency
"A vote for Trump's Social Security Commissioner is a vote to destroy Social Security," warned one advocacy group.
May 04, 2025
The U.S. Senate on Tuesday is set to hold a confirmation vote for President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Social Security Administration—an ultra-rich former Wall Street executive who has aligned himself with the Elon Musk-led slash-and-burn effort at agencies across the federal government.
"I am fundamentally a DOGE person," Frank Bisignano told CNBC in March, amplifying concerns that he would take his experience in the financial technology industry—where he was notorious for inflicting mass layoffs while raking in a huge compensation package—to SSA, which is already facing large-scale staffing cuts that threaten the delivery of benefits for millions of Americans.
In an email on Saturday, the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works warned that Bisignano "is not the cure to the DOGE-manufactured chaos at the Social Security Administration."
"In fact, he is part of it, and, if confirmed, would make it even worse," the group added. "We're not going down without a fight. Republicans may have a majority in the Senate, but we're going to rally to send a message: A vote for Trump's Social Security Commissioner is a vote to destroy Social Security!"
"If Mr. Bisignano can get away with lying before he's even in place as commissioner, who knows what else he'll be able to get away with once he's in office."
Bisignano, the CEO of payment processing giant Fiserv, has been accused during his confirmation process of lying under oath about his ties to DOGE, which has worked to seize control of Social Security data as part of a purported effort to root out "fraud" that advocates say is virtually nonexistent.
As The Washington Post reported in March, Bisignano testified to the Senate Finance Committee that "he has had no contact" with DOGE.
"But Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said the claim is 'not true,' citing an account the senator said he received from a senior Social Security official who recently left the agency," the Post noted. "The former official... described 'numerous contacts Mr. Bisignano made with the agency since his nomination,' including 'frequent' conversations with senior executives."
Wyden pointed again to the former SSA official's statement in a floor speech Thursday in opposition to Bisignano, saying that "according to the whistleblower, Mr. Bisignano personally appointed his Wall Street buddy, Michael Russo, to be the leader of DOGE's team at Social Security."
The Oregon Democrat said Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee refused his request for a bipartisan meeting with the whistleblower to evaluate their accusations unless "we agreed to hand over any information received from the whistleblower directly to the nominee and the Trump administration."
"All Americans should be concerned that a nominee for a position of public trust like commissioner of Social Security is accused of lying about his actions at the agency and that efforts to bring this important information to light are being thwarted," Wyden said Thursday. "If Mr. Bisignano can get away with lying before he's even in place as commissioner, who knows what else he'll be able to get away with once he's in office."
"He could lie by denying any American who paid their Social Security taxes the benefits they've earned, claiming some phony pretense," the senator warned. "He could lie about how sensitive personal information is being mishandled—or worse, exploited for commercial use."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Chilling Attempt to Normalize Fascism': Groups Decry Trump Official's Arrest Threats
"We must not allow intimidation and authoritarian tactics to take root in our political system."
May 04, 2025
A coalition of advocacy organizations on Saturday expressed support for Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers and warned that the Trump border czar's threat against the Democratic leader marks a "dangerous escalation" of the administration's assault on the rule of law across the United States.
The groups—including All Voting Is Local and the ACLU of Wisconsin—said in a joint statement that Evers' guidance to state officials on how to handle being confronted by federal agents was "a prudent measure aimed at ensuring compliance with state and federal laws while protecting the rights of state employees."
The suggestion by Tom Homan, a leader of President Donald Trump's mass deportation campaign, that Evers could be arrested for issuing such guidance undermines "the foundational principles of our democracy, including the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the right of state governments to operate without undue federal interference," the groups said Saturday.
"To threaten our governor over his legal directive is gross overreach by our federal government, and it is not occurring in a vacuum," they continued, warning that the administration's rhetoric and actions represent a "chilling attempt to normalize fascism."
"Similar occurrences are happening across the nation, including within our academic systems," the groups added. "If we do not reject these actions now, states and other institutions will only lose more and more of their autonomy and power. This is exactly why we underscore Gov. Evers' claim that this event is 'chilling.'"
The threats against Gov. Evers in Wisconsin undermine the foundational principles of our democracy: the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the right of state governments to operate without undue federal interference. We must reject this overreach. allvotingislocal.org/statements/w...
[image or embed]
— All Voting is Local (@allvotingislocal.bsky.social) May 3, 2025 at 9:58 AM
Trump administration officials and the president himself have repeatedly threatened state and local officials as the White House rushes ahead with its lawless mass deportation campaign, which has ensnared tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants and at least over a dozen U.S. citizens—including children.
In an executive order signed late last month, Trump accused "some state and local officials" of engaging in a "lawless insurrection" against the federal government by refusing to cooperate with the administration's deportation efforts.
But as Temple University law professor Jennifer Lee recently noted, localities "can legally decide not to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement."
"Cities, like states, have constitutional protections against being forced to administer or enforce federal programs," Lee wrote. "The Trump administration cannot force any state or local official to assist in enforcing federal immigration law."
Administration officials have also leveled threats against members of Congress, with Homan suggesting earlier this year that he would refer Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to the U.S. Justice Department for holding a webinar informing constituents of their rights.
During a town hall on Friday, Ocasio-Cortez dared Homan to do so.
"To that I say: Come for me," she said to cheers from the audience. "We need to challenge them. So don't let them intimidate you."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular