Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA Pollution Rules

  1. #11
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,580

    Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA Pollution Rules

    So, the EPA now has to consider costs.

    I wonder when the Congress will begin to consider costs?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA Pollution Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    So, the EPA now has to consider costs.

    I wonder when the Congress will begin to consider costs?
    To be fair the EPA did this to themselves by blatantly ignoring that the health of industry is part of their job.

  3. #13
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,266

    Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA Pollution Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    So, the EPA now has to consider costs.

    I wonder when the Congress will begin to consider costs?
    Maybe when interest rates move significantly up? Nah. They'll never go up much. Never happened before.

  4. #14
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,484

    Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA Pollution Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    We should have a new Monopoly game where development is required to meet all the possible regulations and zoning ordinances, the required financing restrictions, and contracting procedures deemed acceptable. That would be a sobering dose of reality. We must care for the environment, but we need to do it in a way that allows for human development at the same time.


    You mean like reasonable laws?

    **** that. Not when they have such a great end-of-the-world scenario with which to fulfill they're attention deficit.....

    We beat them, drove them into the political back woods here in the last election, winning on a "drill, baby, drill" platform. The overwhelming majority of the populace has said "drill"!

    Yet, we are trying to lay in a new, modern, self sensing pipeline to join with the southern lower mainland network feeding the airports etc. and have been faced with the usual need for court injunctions to keep them off the property, hearings after hearings to deal with yet another unfounded ecological accusation, and protests, protests, protests, usually the same rent-a-crowd and some First Nations beating hand held drums. The TV stations don't even have to go, they can use footage from the first one.

    And no one cares, if asked most will say "if we need it, build it", and yet a three year project will take ten.

    Its an industry now, a subsidiary of global warming
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

  5. #15
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,364

    Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA Pollution Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    So, the EPA now has to consider costs.

    I wonder when the Congress will begin to consider costs?
    I would like that, but the EPA is a good start!

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA Pollution Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    We should have a new Monopoly game where development is required to meet all the possible regulations and zoning ordinances, the required financing restrictions, and contracting procedures deemed acceptable. That would be a sobering dose of reality. We must care for the environment, but we need to do it in a way that allows for human development at the same time.
    I noticed that the Supreme Court didn't consider the cost of all the regulations they must comply to in the ruling. I think if they are really going to go with the cost angle they have to consider the cost of all regulations.

  7. #17
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,947
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA Pollution Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Oh my, BO peep's roll-out comes to an end, huh? And on one of his really special issues. Scalia says.....No. You don't just deem fit what you think you can.




    The majority decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the EPA has to consider the costs of complying with the rules and sent the air pollution regulations back to the agency. "EPA must consider cost — including cost of compliance — before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary. It will be up to the agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost," Scalia wrote in agreeing with the industry.

    The decision will have repercussions for other EPA regulations that are key to Obama's climate change agenda. The EPA will now have to examine the cost of compliance for the Clean Power Plan, which is at the heart of the president's environmental agenda.

    The EPA had argued that the rules are both appropriate and necessary regardless of the costs, and that it has the discretion under the law to act as it deems fit in regulating hazardous pollutants.....snip~

    Supreme Court rules against EPA on pollution rules | WashingtonExaminer.com
    If SCOTUS is requiring the EPA to make a cost benefit analysis of their regulations, I suspect that they'll skew the numbers / results to only further justify what they've made their ideological minds up on already. It's kinda like leaving the fox in charge of the hen house, don't you think? I mean just the way the admin cooked the ObamaCare numbers, right? A track record of doing so already established, in my view. Needs independent review, analysis and vetting.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    What we really need is someone with the political balls to end the EPA as we know it today, and replace the organization with something that has more accountability to Congress and cannot at their own discretion come up with regulation policy. An advocacy group I do not mind, but how the EPA operates today is damn near Gestapo like all with their own militarized police force.
    Indeed it does. But whom? Certainly not from the establishment GOP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Funny, your President wasn't.

    Now, Corporations aren't being forced into a " compromise " that winds up hurting the Middle class.

    Thanks to this ruling , Middle class Americans won't be forced to fund the Progressive scam that is Global warming through higher cost on energy, products and services.
    Indeed. This decision can only help the recovery, rather than further stymieing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    We should have a new Monopoly game where development is required to meet all the possible regulations and zoning ordinances, the required financing restrictions, and contracting procedures deemed acceptable. That would be a sobering dose of reality. We must care for the environment, but we need to do it in a way that allows for human development at the same time.
    Agreed.
    the Fix-is-in Bureau of Investigation

  8. #18
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,364

    Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA Pollution Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I noticed that the Supreme Court didn't consider the cost of all the regulations they must comply to in the ruling. I think if they are really going to go with the cost angle they have to consider the cost of all regulations.
    It seems fairly broad to me,
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...epa-emissions/

  9. #19
    A sinister place...
    OrphanSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    08-08-17 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,860

    Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA Pollution Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    Indeed it does. But whom? Certainly not from the establishment GOP.
    Unsure. Probably someone who leans far enough Libertarian to make the compelling argument. In other words, no one in the current 114th Congress qualifies.
    "Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people." - Penn Jillette.

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: SCOTUS Rules Against EPA Pollution Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    If SCOTUS is requiring the EPA to make a cost benefit analysis of their regulations, I suspect that they'll skew the numbers / results to only further justify what they've made their ideological minds up on already. It's kinda like leaving the fox in charge of the hen house, don't you think? I mean just the way the admin cooked the ObamaCare numbers, right? A track record of doing so already established, in my view. Needs independent review, analysis and vetting.
    It will be just another CBO that is wrong every single time. Doing math is hard for government, you know. Apparently lawyers are really bad at math. Who knew?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •