@mott-the-hoople saidThanks for proving your statement "Nixon created the EPA" was wrong.
well I’ll be…The EPA web site is lying then…
“Following the council’s recommendations, the president sent to Congress a plan to consolidate many environmental responsibilities of the federal government under one agency, a new Environmental Protection Agency. This reorganization would permit response to environmental problems in a manner beyond the previous capability of government pollution control programs:”
https://www.epa.gov/history/origins-epa
It was created by an act of Congress not executive fiat.
3 edits
@averagejoe1 saidIt's an interesting argument Joe. Elena Kagan does not know what she's talking about. She's an unelected bureaucrat. All of them are. The expertise to understand the nuance of climate change is not in her job description. In fact, that is the crux of her entire dissent. Why is the legal system deciding what a "major question" is when Congress gave that authority to the regulatory agencies?
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/kagan-warns-parts-east-coast-swallowed-ocean-dissent-epa-case
Justice Kagan put this in her dissent. I could scream! Her job is to be final arbiter of the law, insure equal justice under the law. Everything otherwise surrounding the decision of the court is none of her business. Jesus. That is a fact. Only liberals run their m ...[text shortened]... .....and, be able to allow EPA to make law.
Can not one of you sit back and think for a moment?
SCOTUS has wrested control away from elected leaders and given that decision making power to themselves, who have no expertise in these matters.
The major logic throughout her dissent is "we don't know and Congress gave the authority to the EPA to make decisions not us."
The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the ‘major questions doctrine’ magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.
@earl-of-trumps saidAt least that person was elected.
@Phranny
Very simply this: the executive branch - ONE PERSON and his minions (or string pullers) has too much power.
@no1marauder saidcongress only APPROVED Nixons plan idiot, but you know that, its just that in your mind you are never wrong…AJ is a man of character in admitting wrong, maybe you could adk him for tips
Thanks for proving your statement "Nixon created the EPA" was wrong.
It was created by an act of Congress not executive fiat.
@averagejoe1 saidI read somewhere a few days back that Clarence Thomas was saying that he would make life miserable for liberals as long as he was on SCOTUS.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/kagan-warns-parts-east-coast-swallowed-ocean-dissent-epa-case
Justice Kagan put this in her dissent. I could scream! Her job is to be final arbiter of the law, insure equal justice under the law. Everything otherwise surrounding the decision of the court is none of her business. Jesus. That is a fact. Only liberals run their m ...[text shortened]... .....and, be able to allow EPA to make law.
Can not one of you sit back and think for a moment?
This was in retribution for the rough ride he was given over the Anita Hill affair.
This seems a lot more harmful in terms of stepping over one's boundaries of the job.
Seems a little angry for the job, one would think ?
@earl-of-trumps saidThat one person could be Biden.
@Phranny
Very simply this: the executive branch - ONE PERSON and his minions (or string pullers) has too much power.
Or it could be Trump.
@no1marauder saidwhat marider1 says;
No, Nixon signed the law passed by Congress. He had little choice; the Clean Air Act amendments of 1970 which created the EPA passed with one vote against in the House and unanimously in the Senate.
The language of the Act clearly grants to the EPA power to identify and regulate air pollutants. The SCOTUS ruling is a judicial usurpation of the People's overwhelmingly expressed wishes.
"The language of the Act clearly grants to the EPA power to identify and regulate air pollutants. "
what the act says;
"The EPA would be able--in concert with the states--to set and enforce standards for air and water quality and for individual pollutants.'
in concert with the states
Its called lying by omission
@mott-the-hoople saidAnd if it hadn't it wouldn't have been "created" would it? So Nixon didn't create it, a law passed by Congress did.
congress only APPROVED Nixons plan idiot, but you know that, its just that in your mind you are never wrong…AJ is a man of character in admitting wrong, maybe you could adk him for tips
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidCite to the section of the Act that says that.
what marider1 says;
"The language of the Act clearly grants to the EPA power to identify and regulate air pollutants. "
what the act says;
"The EPA would be able--in concert with the states--to set and enforce standards for air and water quality and for individual pollutants.'
in concert with the states
Its called lying by omission
It doesn't; you're just repeating some faulty right wing analysis of it.
42 USC 7408 specifically grants the EPA to identify and regulate air pollutants.
@no1marauder saidcongress approval allowed nixons plan to become law...shytweaseling
And if it hadn't it wouldn't have been "created" would it? So Nixon didn't create it, a law passed by Congress did.
@mott-the-hoople saidSo he didn't "create" it and your claim was false and misleading to suggest the agency was created by executive fiat rather than Congressional action.
congress approval allowed nixons plan to become law...shytweaseling
@jimm619 saidyou confuse the "clean air act" with the "EPA"...come back when you have something
President Johnson first enacted the law.
You believe the CLEAN AIR ACT is bad?
Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act of 1963
The Clean Air Act, initially enacted in 1963 and amended in 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990, is a United States federal law designed to control air pollution on a national level. It is one of the United States' first and most influential modern environm ...[text shortened]... ce, it is one of the United States' first and most influential modern environmental laws. .Wikipedia
@wildgrass saidSo, thank God we have Biden running our country? What specifically is the thanks for? Just a question.
At least that person was elected.
@Earl-of-Trumps
She is a HELL of a lot smarter than you or any of the zombie crowd.
She can say what she wants and there is ZIP you and all your zombie friends can do about, besides, just venturing opinions doesn't mean with SCOTUS now puppets of the religious right wingers, anything she ventures will just be thrown in the trash no matter how relevant her words are.
So much for the right to privacy, BTW.
@mghrn55 saidYes he did say that, you could start a thread on it and I would be the first to say that he, in that instance, also was not in keeping with the office to say something like that. Justices have a very tight line to walk, they cannot just speak freely, which is too bad. He did catch hell at his confirmation hearing, thus his reasoning, but he was wrong to speak it. I hope Kavanaugh and Gorsuch never speak out about the crap you fellers put them through, either.
I read somewhere a few days back that Clarence Thomas was saying that he would make life miserable for liberals as long as he was on SCOTUS.
This was in retribution for the rough ride he was given over the Anita Hill affair.
This seems a lot more harmful in terms of stepping over one's boundaries of the job.
Seems a little angry for the job, one would think ?
Having said all that, it is a different issue than Kagan putting her personal opinions (believes in global warming, climate change) in a Dissent, for god sakes. Does this mean she was thinking of her personal mission to save the planet, which would be a wrong thing to do? Or thinking of the law, the Constitution.