Sunday is Earth Day and environmental issues are at the forefront of policy discussions more than ever. The pundits are weighing in.

The New Republic doesn’t buy the argument that the U.S. shouldn’t cap emissions because China and India aren’t following suit. As a fully industrialized nation the U.S. has a responsibility to act, no matter who joins us.

The New York Times praises new efforts to bring international security into the global warming discussion. People don’t always listen to warnings of environmental woe, but they pay attention when “security” comes up.

The LA Times says that for all of the environmental problems that face us, global warming is the worst. If you want to save the whales you must save the earth first.

Wayne Winegarden argues that we can’t ignore the costs of carbon regulation. But what about the costs of global warming?

Peter Opa is trying to understand why many on the Christian right aren’t joining the fight against environmental degradation. The reason he thinks they aren’t joining their more liberal brethren? Political power and money.

Gonzales gave his long awaited testimony before congress yesterday. From left to right, few pundits think Gonzales gave any reasons for why he should keep his job.

The New York Times watched the testimony of Alberto Gonzales yesterday and didn’t think he could have done a better job making a case for his firing.

The LA Times believes that Gonzales’ testimony might help us understand the tangle web he weaved, but it won’t repair his reputation.

Joe Conason argues that the firing of Gonzales is not enough. The Justice Department must be brought to justice and the appointment of a special prosecutor is the only way to do that.

Dahlia Lithwick thinks that for all of the burden on Gonzales, Gonzales’ own concern is only for the president at whose pleasure he serves.

Byron York was hoping that Gonzales would be able to defend himself and answer the lingering questions over the U.S. Attorney firings. He was disappointed.

Rick Perlstein says that of all the lies Gonzales has told, the worst is his claim that “he’s an incometent buffoon.”

Hugh Hewitt likes the steadfastness of the Bush administration, but he thinks that when it comes to Gonzales, Bush shouldn’t “waste precious political capital trying to save Gonzo’s hide.”

Seven years after striking down a similar ban from the Nevada legislature, the Supreme Court yesterday ruled 5-4 to uphold a federal partial birth abortion ban, one that has an exception for the life of the mother, but not the more broadly defined “health exception.”

Karen Houppert says the Court has broken with thirty years of precedent in wading this deeply in the medical procedure used in abortion. It’s one small step for the “Prolife Master Plan” aided by the new conservative majority of the Supreme Court’s significant break from thirty years of precedent.

Christianity Today agrees that yesterday’s decision was a result of years of strategic chipping away at Roe v. Wade “overarching extremism.”

The Wall Street Journal says the Court actually went out of its way to avoid a sweeping repeal of previous decisions in order to deliver a decision narrowly tailored to a procedure that amounts to infanticide.

Dahlia Lithwick points out that, in his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to be preoccupied with protecting a minority of women who may later regret their decision to have a partial birth abortion.

Andrew Cohen points out the obvious: “You can spin this any other way you want but in the end it comes down to a simple matter of personnel. Justice Alito was willing and able to go in the law where his predecessor, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't.”

The National Review focuses on the dissenting justices, who are accused having found a constitutional right to infanticide but not the courage to articulate it.

Cynthia Gorney, a former Washington Post reporter, looks at the abortion war through the stories of those who are fighting it.

Gun rights and gun control advocates began debating their positions even as the death toll continued to climb, much to the anger of Virginia Governor Tim Kaine. It doesn’t matter which side you are on, this national tragedy is proof that you were right all along.

John Casteen IV says the high profile argument over the assault weapons ban is just a fundraising tool for both sides. But extending the federal background checks mandated by the Brady Law to person-to-person sales would make a real difference.

The LA Times looks to the biblical story of Job to see how we should react to the VA Tech shooting. The time for debate is later, they say, for now we should “respect, quietly, the tears and the pain of this terrible event.”

Michelle Malkin sees a direct correlation between intolerance for conservative opinions on college campuses and students inability to defend themselves.

John Tabin has ferreted out the real culprit here: greedy lawyers who would sue colleges that didn’t institute “no-gun” policies.

The New York Times claims that eight years after Columbine the ease with which killers can obtain guns has not improved. We can’t wait another eight years for real change, they argue.

James Alan Fox says that if we want answers to why mass killings happen, we need to look at our deteriorating communities. Today the isolated are more isolated than ever.

On Sunday Russian dissidents lead a peaceful rally in Pushkin Square in Moscow. The rally was violently put down by police and Gary Kasparov, the former world chess champion, was arrested along with many others. This event confirmed for many that democracy is in trouble in Russia.

The Wall Street Journal asks if the Pushkin square arrests is a harbinger for bloody days to come. The days of Putin’s presidency are waning according to the Russian constitution. But will he give up power?

David Pryce-Jones calls Kasparov a litmus test for Russian democracy. The paper has been dipped and the answer comes back—acid.

Matt Welch cautions against claiming that Putin’s actions are unique. Putin’s action are more in line with Gorbachev’s than most think.

The Washington Post says that the arrest of dissidents in Pushkin Square Sunday confirms that democracy, which requires opposition parties, is dead in Russia.

Garry Kasparov, arrested Sunday in Pushkin Square, has written a new book. It is a thinly veiled manifesto for another Russia.

Paul Wolfowitz’s tenure as the President of the World Bank is in trouble. He allegedly gave his girlfriend a raise and that, for many, is grounds for his ouster. Others say that Wolfowitz is merely the object of a European led smear.

The New York Times says that Wolfowitz has lost all creditability as World Bank President. It’s not his “past job,” but his nepotism that makes it time for him to go.

The LA Times agrees that Wolfowitz’s career at the bank should end. He came into his job with an agenda to end corruption at the World Bank. His own corruption makes that agenda impossible under his leadership.

The Economist reports that as far as the Europeans go, the verdict on Wolfowitz is in. The only thing left to be decided is the sentence.

The Wall Street Journal offers some of the missing story in the Wolfowitz scandal. The facts, they say, show no misdeeds on Wolfowitz’s part, but provide evidence of a smear that has little to do with Wolfowitz’s alleged nepotism.

James Fallows thinks that Wolfowitz is more like Jimmy Swaggart than Robert McNamara—a man who lives in hypocrisy.

Richard Cohen says that all is not fair in love and war. If you start an unjustified war you can keep your job and even get promoted, but if you give your girlfriend a raise? That is grounds for a firing.

The editors at Le Monde say that if Wolfowitz doesn’t resign, the European’s will have to go against tradition and oust him.