Trump to Block California Emissions Standards

[trouble13]

Donald Trump thinks that he can govern by executive order as a dictatorial fantasy because he refuses to work with Congress, by the courts won't let him. He needs to show just cause for this action and there is nothing to show. The automakers and the state oppose this action and it will end up in the courts. Trump will lose in the courts.

He didnt start out thinking that way. I think it happened during the transition when obama handed trump his pen. It seems theres still plenty of ink left in it too.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Donald Trump is doing this because Barack Obama did it and his goal is to wipe Obama from history because of his racist temper tantrum. Obama hilariously roasted Trump to his face at the White House press corps dinner in 2011 and Trump has been obsessed with revenge ever since.

Yup obama ripped into Trump and everyone got a good laugh at his expense that night but guess who is laughing now. Theres a lesson there but im sure its not be learned by the ones who should be learning it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Helix]

On a more basic level, why do this?

Arbitrarily Pissin' Off The Libs![sup]TM[/sup]

next up, a return to leaded gas for no good reason.

 

[Lisa]

Yup obama ripped into Trump and everyone got a good laugh at his expense that night but guess who is laughing now. Theres a lesson there but im sure its not be learned by the ones who should be learning it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Trump is largely powerless because the GOP doesn't control all of Congress. This action is a tempest in a teapot that will not happen because judges will see it for what it is.

 

[trouble13]

Your capitulation is noted. There is no reason to do what Trump is doing except for his micron thick skin and his outside racist ego. The courts will see though his nonsense when California and other states file an injunction and the judges will stike this EO down

You would think so but the progressive jidges in the courts seem to believe the commerece clause gives the federal superior powers of authority and the sbility to supersede your argument

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Grand Mal]

Did you read the article? This has nothing to do with "state's rights". California never had a "right". All they had was a "waiver". That waiver is being removed.

As I said in that other thread on this topic a week or so back: The lord giveth and the lord taketh away. In this case, the federal government calls the shots.

Are you okay with feds rolling back emission control standards?

 

[Lisa]

You would think so but the progressive judges in the courts seem to believe the commerce clause gives the federal superior powers of authority and the sbility to supersede your argument

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Of course, the federal government has the explicit power and authority to regulate corporations but there is no relevant reason to roll back the waiver given to Californa and other states that allows them to have stricter emissions regs. Rolling them back does not serve a positive purpose and the automakers aren't asking for the rollback. This is a personal vendetta driven by Trump's own ego.

 

[Mycroft]

I'd say California needs to collectively fart in Trump's mouth, but he's so fond of pollution he'd probably like it.

The only way to deny the waiver is if the Administrator rules California's standards arbitrary and capricious. Good luck winning that court battle. Anyone who remembers how much worse the smog in LA used to be will know that it's not.

You should probably justify the highlighted statement with some kind of citation of a law.

 

[Nickyjo]

I believe Trump is wrong and violating California's sovereignty.

I'm sure that all of you on the left will respect and condone the federal goverments authority to do so under the authority of the commerece clause. Amirite?hi

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

There might be such a justification, but has anyone a clue why he is doing this?

 

[Nickyjo]

Of course, the federal government has the explicit power and authority to regulate corporations but there is no relevant reason to roll back the waiver given to Californa and other states that allows them to have stricter emissions regs. Rolling them back does not serve a positive purpose and the automakers aren't asking for the rollback. This is a personal vendetta driven by Trump's own ego.

I don’t want to sound naive, but could it really just be that? Has the EPA or any agency weighed in on this?

 

[Mycroft]

Not exactly correct. For these types of regulation removal, there needs to be a reason that indicates the benefit to the government or nation. If not, it is subject to judicial oversight.

Don't worry, Trump and his people are smart enough to have a reason ready to trot out when someone gets froggy and takes this to court.

 

[Mycroft]

Are you okay with feds rolling back emission control standards?

Sure.

 

[trouble13]

Of course, the federal government has the explicit power and authority to regulate corporations but there is no relevant reason to roll back the waiver given to Californa and other states that allows them to have stricter emissions regs. Rolling them back does not serve a positive purpose and the automakers aren't asking for the rollback. This is a personal vendetta driven by Trump's own ego.

Neither the automakers nor individual states have a voice in this. According to the courts past ruling this is the federal governments domain.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Mr Person]

blah, blah, blah...

You don't say...

 

[Lisa]

I don’t want to sound naive, but could it really just be that? Has the EPA or any agency weighed in on this?

Why would the EPA support selling cars have produce more pollution in Californa and 12 other states? That is counter to their reason for existence.

 

[Lisa]

Don't worry, Trump and his people are smart enough to have a reason ready to trot out when someone gets froggy and takes this to court.

What is the great social or national good to sell cars that create more pollution when we are trying to clean up the environment to prevent climate change? The automakers themselves oppose it because they are well aware that the long term market prognosis to making cleaner cars and even electric vehicles. Obviously, Califona opposes it because it creates more pollution.

 

[Lisa]

You should probably justify the highlighted statement with some kind of citation of a law.

This state-level waiver isn't arbitrary or capricious because they have a pollution problem because of the west coast climate and weather. has been in place for 40+ years so what has changed other than Donny wants to inject his ego? Do you want to breathe air that is more polluted?

 

[Grand Mal]

Sure.

You pretty much okay with whatever Trump does?
I don't know how old you are, if you remember how bad that smog was in large American cities but you might have seen pictures.

Photos: L.A.’s mid-century smog was so bad, people thought it was a gas attack

From the link...
"Today, ozone levels in L.A. are 40 percent of what they were in 1970 — and that’s with double the cars. "

 

[trouble13]

There might be such a justification, but has anyone a clue why he is doing this?

I have no idea why he is revoking their waiver. Im only pointing out that the oeople wagging their fingers at conservatives are the same people that dont believe in atate sovereignty

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Lisa]

Neither the automakers nor individual states have a voice in this. According to the courts past ruling this is the federal government's domain.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

There is no reason for the government to change anything, except for Trump's ego. You need a reason to change laws, and there is nothing relevant. There must be a valid reason to change laws and not just because Trump wants to as political or partisan retribution.

This has been settled federal law for 40+ years so if it was arbitrary then what changed to force the government to revisit the regulation? If it was as arbitrary as you claim this would have been changed a generation ago. The automakers aren't asking for this change so the GOP cant claims that it is an act of corporate deregulation.

 

[Mycroft]

You pretty much okay with whatever Trump does?
I don't know how old you are, if you remember how bad that smog was in large American cities but you might have seen pictures.

Photos: L.A.’s mid-century smog was so bad, people thought it was a gas attack

From the link...
"Today, ozone levels in L.A. are 40 percent of what they were in 1970 — and that’s with double the cars. "

At this point, there's no reason to believe we'll go back to how bad it was in the bad old days...even without California's stricter rules.

Don't be a Chicken Little just because it's coming from Trump.

 

[Craig234]

BTW, what happened to conservative support of states rights, or that is only applied to defend racism and bigotry?

Can we stop referring to that propaganda as if it's credible? Republicans make up lipstick for their pigs. If they want to be racist, they call it state's rights or other things. 'Original intent' is used to rewrite our constitution, and so on. We should just call them lies/propaganda, instead of pretending they're anything else and we're surprised Republicans abandon them when convenient. Too many people fall for them.

 

[Craig234]

There is no reason for the government to change anything, except for Trump's ego. You need a reason to change laws, and there is nothing relevant. There must be a valid reason to change laws and not just because Trump wants to as political or partisan retribution.

This has been settled federal law for 40+ years so if it was arbitrary then what changed to force the government to revisit the regulation? If it was as arbitrary as you claim this would have been changed a generation ago. The automakers aren't asking for this change so the GOP cant claims that it is an act of corporate deregulation.

While it's been done routinely for decades, it's still legally the federal government's choice to allow it, and so unless there's some other legal argument, I'm not sure trump can be prevented by the courts. This might fall under 'win the election to get the policy you want' regarding this asinine, horrible, harmful act by trump.

The automakers, as I've heard, are doing more than not asking for this, they're actively opposing it. trump is causing pollution the automakers are against.

 

[Grand Mal]

At this point, there's no reason to believe we'll go back to how bad it was in the bad old days...even without California's stricter rules.

Don't be a Chicken Little just because it's coming from Trump.

You've got that backwards. There's no reason to think allowing emission standards to be what they were in the 70's won't make the air just as polluted as it was then. More- there's twice as many cars today.
But I get it. Environmental concern is a left-wing thing so anyone who calls himself conservative is against it. By default. Besides, It's what big business wants. If wealthy people say something, well, being richer than us they must be smarter than us so they must be right.

 

[Lisa]

While it's been done routinely for decades, it's still legally the federal government's choice to allow it, and so unless there's some other legal argument, I'm not sure trump can be prevented by the courts. This might fall under 'win the election to get the policy you want' regarding this asinine, horrible, harmful act by trump.

The automakers, as I've heard, are doing more than not asking for this, they're actively opposing it. trump is causing pollution the automakers are against.

There has to be a valid reason to act. You cannot change regulations/policy on a whim and the judges will see this for what it is and deny Trump's action. If the legitimacy of this waiver was legally unsupported it would have been challenged on its face 40+ years ago.