• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS Rules Against EPA Pollution Rules

Good. Let's just say I work in a "business" that has to deal with the dictates of the EPA on occasion (if only from a second-order effect), and I am happy that they have been reigned in slightly. My experiences with this agency is one of dealing with a universe lazy, un-insightful and self-preserving "C" students, encased in a bloated government edifice and endowed with a singular agenda that really cannot comprehend how wealth is generated. Cross these dimwits with the much sharper people that work on the "other side" and make it a mission to compromise them, and you have a resultant mud that neither protects our environment or grows our economy.

At the end of the day, it is just another agency in the lap of the Executive branch, and will do the requested bidding appropriately. I really do think that you can accomplish some very constructive things via collaboration with industry and regulatory bodies (please don't use the tired "drill baby drill" refrain with me, I make quite a bit of bread via energy exploration, and that phrase is facile and moronic). The current EPA is a long way from such a place.
 
Yeah. In some larger businesses, there are thousands working devoted entirely to regulatory compliance. Since I've done it, I can't tell you how exciting it is to spend all day reading the Federal Register without crying.
100% indicative of a larger problem, as is . . . .
Good. Let's just say I work in a "business" that has to deal with the dictates of the EPA on occasion (if only from a second-order effect), and I am happy that they have been reigned in slightly. My experiences with this agency is one of dealing with a universe lazy, un-insightful and self-preserving "C" students, encased in a bloated government edifice and endowed with a singular agenda that really cannot comprehend how wealth is generated. Cross these dimwits with the much sharper people that work on the "other side" and make it a mission to compromise them, and you have a resultant mud that neither protects our environment or grows our economy.

At the end of the day, it is just another agency in the lap of the Executive branch, and will do the requested bidding appropriately. I really do think that you can accomplish some very constructive things via collaboration with industry and regulatory bodies (please don't use the tired "drill baby drill" refrain with me, I make quite a bit of bread via energy exploration, and that phrase is facile and moronic). The current EPA is a long way from such a place.

Government employment, because the marginal and incompetent need employment too! :lamo

I too think the EPA could stand some thinning out. I'd wager that 5 years of 10% year on year budget cuts would make some much needed staffing and scope choices to be made. But that's just my opinion.
 
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

That won't happen as long as Obama is in charge.
 
Reuters points out how it is a significant blow to BO.


Scalia suggested in his opinion that the government did not consider whether their regulations would impose any harm on human health.

"The government concedes that if the agency were to find that emissions from power plants do damage to human health, but that the technologies needed to eliminate these emissions do even more damage to human health, it would still deem regulation appropriate," he wrote. "No regulation is 'appropriate' if it does significantly more harm than good."

In a fiery dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the EPA acted "well within its authority" in imposing regulations that could save "many, many lives."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) hailed the Supreme Court's decision, saying it represents a "cutting rebuke to the administration's callous attitude." "Obama administration officials like to pretend that the costs of their massive and regressive regulations either don't exist or don't matter," McConnell said. "Middle-class families in Kentucky and across our country don't have that luxury, and are often the first to suffer.".....snip~

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-just-handed-obama-144414979.html
 
:lol: To be fair the EPA did this to themselves by blatantly ignoring that the health of industry is part of their job.

I'm more concerned about breathing in mercury than I am about profit margins.
 
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.

The EPA does not have a ****ing militarized police force.
 
Ugh, terrible decision. The EPA needs to upgrade to a full scale department with expanded powers if the threat of climate change is to be taken seriously.
 
Back
Top Bottom