Chevron reversed!!!

[Cardin Drake 2,091]

A great day for America: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/01/supreme-court-chevron-doctrine-climate-change-00094670

[I_M4_AU 9,162]

One can only hope that the SCOTUS comes up with the correct decision and Biden is not re-elected.  If he were to be re-elected and the SCOTUS makes the correct decision, Biden would just ignore the ruling and be the dicator he is.

[homersapien 12,353]

BACK TO THE "GILDED AGE"!

**** the environment.  What could go wrong?

[Cardin Drake 2,091]

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

BACK TO THE "GILDED AGE"!

**** the environment.  What could go wrong?

No, **** unelected bureaucrats making laws. Congress can still do what they want; they just have more trouble now hiding behind the administrative state.  

[I_M4_AU 9,162]

 

 

[I_M4_AU 9,162]

 

 

[TexasTiger 14,575]

7 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

 

Steep learning curve. Prepare for even more dysfunction.

[DKW 86 7,969]

So, a DC bureaucrat mandated on their own accord that fishing boats must pay a $4900/week fee for tracking. Any reasonable person could easily see that this was nothing but killing a fishing industry, a thousand family incomes, dozens of communities, etc for no other reason than a bureaucrat being unreasonable...

Edited June 29 by DKW 86

[homersapien 12,353]

19 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

No, **** unelected bureaucrats making laws. Congress can still do what they want; they just have more trouble now hiding behind the administrative state.  

Pretty soon, we'll again have rivers that catch on fire.  Back to the Future!

[DKW 86 7,969]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Pretty soon, we'll again have rivers that catch on fire.  Back to the Future!

Document and post such for all to see...

[I_M4_AU 9,162]

2 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Document and post such for all to see...

Looks like someone is worried about loosing the bully pulpit.

[DKW 86 7,969]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Looks like someone is worried about loosing the bully pulpit.

No. I know these folks well enough to know they arent that dumb. Some here are absolute masters of idiot-level hyperbole, however. 

Some think that ANY reigning in of obviously overstepping bureaucrats is just too much to take. In govt, as in all things, there has to be some give and take and often times new boundaries reset. 

Edited June 29 by DKW 86

[autigeremt 7,262]

On 6/28/2024 at 1:35 PM, Cardin Drake said:

No, **** unelected bureaucrats making laws. Congress can still do what they want; they just have more trouble now hiding behind the administrative state.  

The left is nothing but a fake azz alternative. They would allow millions of Americans to go bankrupt or even worse just to push their so called “green” agenda. All while empowering their allies. 

[AU9377 6,174]

Some of you actually believe that you can trust corporate America to value your life over their profits.  LMAO

[Cardin Drake 2,091]

42 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Some of you actually believe that you can trust corporate America to value your life over their profits.  LMAO

Some of us think 30K in regulation cost to build a new house and 15K in regulation cost to build a new car is too high. Regulation is important, but there is a happy medium somewhere. 

[AU9377 6,174]

19 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

Some of us think 30K in regulation cost to build a new house and 15K in regulation cost to build a new car is too high. Regulation is important, but there is a happy medium somewhere. 

I also think that it is too high.  However, those numbers simply aren't accurate.  Don't get me wrong, I do believe that those numbers are represented as such by some source somewhere.  The problem is that you can construct a cost of manufacturing to be great or small, depending on what you take into account.

The cost of manufacturing a Chevy Malibu is reported by GM as being approx $15,000.

https://www.thepricer.org/how-much-does-it-cost-to-build-a-car/

As for home construction, state and local environmental regulations impact that cost much more heavily than anything the federal govt. requires.  I have seen some that are ridiculous and others that, while onerous, become necessary when the population grows and as a result the impact of constructing homes becomes greater.

[GoAU 1,696]

On 6/29/2024 at 10:08 AM, homersapien said:

Pretty soon, we'll again have rivers that catch on fire.  Back to the Future!

Or perhaps Congress can just do their job and pass clear laws instead of granting tons of non-Constitutional power to administrative agencies that shouldn’t be able to make “rules” on a whim.  There was never a 4th branch of government in the Constitution. 

[AU9377 6,174]

Ron DeSantis Receives Backlash Over Blocking Pollution Warnings to Beachgoers (msn.com)

[homersapien 12,353]

12 hours ago, GoAU said:

Or perhaps Congress can just do their job and pass clear laws instead of granting tons of non-Constitutional power to administrative agencies that shouldn’t be able to make “rules” on a whim.  There was never a 4th branch of government in the Constitution. 

Legislatures can draft legislation to define objectives, but it should be obvious they don't have the ecological expertise to draft specific "rules" or regulations.

This is nothing more than reversing environmental policies that were put in place for good reasons. 

To make pollution cost-free and without consequence to those who pollute is a betrayal of public welfare.

We are repeating the mistakes of the past.

Edited July 12 by homersapien

[auburnatl1 6,384]

The problem I have with both maga and progressives is that both are about big expansive, expensive, restrictive government (the 2025 project is not less  gov or laws - just theocracy based big gov). 2 opposites of exactly the same controlling coin.  So instinctually I generally support deregulating initiatives and taking control away from gov.

However, I do think global warming is real and a strategic threat - so I’m admittedly conflicted on this one.

Edited July 12 by auburnatl1

[GoAU 1,696]

This is about a lot more than environmental issues.   There are way too many people executive agencies passing “rules” that are in fact defacto laws.   That isn’t the way the system was designed to work.  The congressman themselves may not be expert enough to write laws from scratch on every topic, but do you really think they don’t have the resources to do so?  Instead both sides pass ambiguous laws and throw s*** over the fence for (partisan) agencies to “clarify” through rules.  

[homersapien 12,353]

13 hours ago, GoAU said:

This is about a lot more than environmental issues.   There are way too many people executive agencies passing “rules” that are in fact defacto laws.   That isn’t the way the system was designed to work.  The congressman themselves may not be expert enough to write laws from scratch on every topic, but do you really think they don’t have the resources to do so?  Instead both sides pass ambiguous laws and throw s*** over the fence for (partisan) agencies to “clarify” through rules.  

First, you assume that congress has the capability to write detailed laws regarding highly complex, ecological/scientific issues.  I submit that is practically and politically impossible. (Just look at their performance.)

This ruling simply transfers the interpretation of details currently made by the scientific community to the judiciary, who are arguably even less qualified and capable of specifying details than the legislative branch. 

If the currently system needs "tweeking", fine.  Litigate controversial points point by point.  A lawsuit is an appropriate place to parse such controversies.  Have each side present their scientific and economic cases. But don't simply dismiss a given regulatory element simply because it wasn't specified in the original legislation. 

This is a wholesale/philosophical decision that takes all responsibility for specifying details of such legislation away from the only group qualified to make them.  It's effect will be to make regulatory action virtually impossible.

It's another example of how a radical, activist supreme court is abandoning legal precedent - in this case 40 year old precedent - to re-write law.  It's the sort of thing that conservatives used to oppose, since it's certainly not conservative.

It comes at a particularly bad time since we are staring at a looming, existential, environmental crisis

 

[homersapien 12,353]

17 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

The problem I have with both maga and progressives is that both are about big expansive, expensive, restrictive government (the 2025 project is not less  gov or laws - just theocracy based big gov). 2 opposites of exactly the same controlling coin.  So instinctually I generally support deregulating initiatives and taking control away from gov.

However, I do think global warming is real and a strategic threat - so I’m admittedly conflicted on this one.

That tension has obvious origins, IMO.

It's hard to reconcile smaller or less active government when faced with natural crises resulting from over-population and over-consumption.  The alternative is to simply sit back and let (mindless) human nature and greed just take it's course. (Which is where I am more and more finding myself.)

I think we can forget about establishing a utopian future for our species.  We are playing out our end game.

Edited July 13 by homersapien

[GoAU 1,696]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

First, you assume that congress has the capability to write detailed laws regarding highly complex, ecological/scientific issues.  I submit that is practically and politically impossible. (Just look at their performance.)

This ruling simply transfers the interpretation of details currently made by the scientific community to the judiciary, who are arguably even less qualified and capable of specifying details than the legislative branch. 

If the currently system needs "tweeking", fine.  Litigate controversial points point by point.  A lawsuit is an appropriate place to parse such controversies.  Have each side present their scientific and economic cases. But don't simply dismiss a given regulatory element simply because it wasn't specified in the original legislation. 

This is a wholesale/philosophical decision that takes all responsibility for specifying details of such legislation away from the only group qualified to make them.  It's effect will be to make regulatory action virtually impossible.

It's another example of how a radical, activist supreme court is abandoning legal precedent - in this case 40 year old precedent - to re-write law.  It's the sort of thing that conservatives used to oppose, since it's certainly not conservative.

It comes at a particularly bad time since we are staring at a looming, existential, environmental crisis

 

If the agencies have the understanding to impart the “rules” after laws are currently passed, they can certainly provide that information to Congress in advance and write it into law.  

[homersapien 12,353]

43 minutes ago, GoAU said:

If the agencies have the understanding to impart the “rules” after laws are currently passed, they can certainly provide that information to Congress in advance and write it into law.  

Not if the legislation is reactionary - like Chevron - which is far more typical.

It's not like congress is going to follow up.

And I'd like to hear one example of the agencies over reaching, presumably since that would be the foundation for the ruling.  Let's debate that.

Do you know what it was?