Supreme Court Seems Skeptical of EPA's 'Good Neighbor' Rule on Power Plant Pollution (apnews.com) 98
The Supreme Court's conservative majority seemed skeptical Wednesday as the Environmental Protection Agency sought to continue enforcing an anti-air-pollution rule in 11 states while separate legal challenges proceed around the country. From a report: The EPA's "good neighbor" rule is intended to restrict smokestack emissions from power plants and other industrial sources that burden downwind areas with smog-causing pollution. Three energy-producing states -- Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia -- challenged the rule, along with the steel industry and other groups, calling it costly and ineffective. The rule is on hold in a dozen states because of the court challenges.
The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has increasingly reined in the powers of federal agencies, including the EPA, in recent years. The justices have restricted EPA's authority to fight air and water pollution -- including a landmark 2022 ruling that limited EPA's authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming. The court also shot down a vaccine mandate and blocked President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness program.
The court is currently weighing whether to overturn its 40-year-old Chevron decision, which has been the basis for upholding a wide range of regulations on public health, workplace safety and consumer protections. A lawyer for the EPA said the "good neighbor" rule was important to protect downwind states that receive unwanted air pollution from other states. Besides the potential health impacts, the states face their own federal deadlines to ensure clean air, said Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, representing the EPA.
The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has increasingly reined in the powers of federal agencies, including the EPA, in recent years. The justices have restricted EPA's authority to fight air and water pollution -- including a landmark 2022 ruling that limited EPA's authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming. The court also shot down a vaccine mandate and blocked President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness program.
The court is currently weighing whether to overturn its 40-year-old Chevron decision, which has been the basis for upholding a wide range of regulations on public health, workplace safety and consumer protections. A lawyer for the EPA said the "good neighbor" rule was important to protect downwind states that receive unwanted air pollution from other states. Besides the potential health impacts, the states face their own federal deadlines to ensure clean air, said Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, representing the EPA.
*cough**cough* (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Clarence Thomas will just drive his free luxury RV upwind of all the pollution.
Re: (Score:3)
Clarence Thomas will just drive his free luxury RV upwind of all the pollution.
Among other things he's received [imgur.com] and "didn't know" he had to report.
Re:Political partisanship versus law (Score:5, Insightful)
In reality, if anyone ever took the trouble to *read* their decisions, they would find that the court makes really well-researched decisions based on the law.
If the EPA is such a blatantly illegal entity then why did anyone wait more than a half century to challenge it? The EPA started operations in 1970 and now in 2024 I'm supposed to suddenly believe the EPA has been operating erroneously since it's inception?
Or perhaps now the court is stacked with Trump appointed stooges the party has a chance to get of the EPA? Something that has been a thorn in the side of big industry for decades.
What research did the court cite? More 17th century witch trials?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the EPA is such a blatantly illegal entity then why did anyone wait more than a half century to challenge it?
They didn't. There have been many legal challenges to the EPA. Some of these challenges have even made it to the Supreme Court.
The EPA started operations in 1970
Yup. It was signed into law by that lovable liberal sweetheart, Richard Nixon.
Re:Political partisanship versus law (Score:4, Interesting)
If Plessy vs Ferguson (1896) was so blatantly illegal, why did it take so long to be overturned by Brown vs Board of Education (1954)?
Re: (Score:2)
If Plessy vs Ferguson (1896) was so blatantly illegal, why did it take so long to be overturned by Brown vs Board of Education (1954)?
Because the US was ridiculously racist in 1896, and by 1954 that racism has subsided enough that a blatantly illegal racist law could be overturned.
The desired to overturn Chevron and kill the EPA is different. Highly partisan Republican judges have obtained a stranglehold on the US supreme court but voters keep putting Democrats in charge otherwise. Since the court can't rely on the administration to implement their preferred policies they've decided they have to do it themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, of course. There is just no chance that Chervon was decided incorrectly, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, of course. There is just no chance that Chervon was decided incorrectly, eh?
So the statute is ambiguous. Who should decide on the proper interpretation? The federal agency, staffed with experts, and bound by countless rules around decision making, or a judge with no expertise who only needs to fill out a few pages to justify their reasoning.
Even with Chevron you already have the court overruling medical experts [cnn.com], losing Chevron would be a disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
If the law is ambiguous, Congress should clarify the ambiguity. Regulations shouldn't be developed in the face of such an ambiguity.
Re: (Score:2)
If the law is ambiguous, Congress should clarify the ambiguity. Regulations shouldn't be developed in the face of such an ambiguity.
And what if Congress doesn't clarify the ambiguity? And what to do in the meantime?
Re: (Score:2)
Then give the law no effect with respect to the ambiguity.
If Congress can't do its job properly, thats on Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Then give the law no effect with respect to the ambiguity.
If Congress can't do its job properly, thats on Congress.
So you want the court to just throw out a whole bunch of in-effect laws because it thinks Congress wasn't specific enough, or more commonly, circumstances changed and created some ambiguity?
That sounds like a disaster.
Re: (Score:3)
You want a Federal judge to be making environmental regulatory law now, rather than the career scientists and researchers at the EPA? Are Federal judges now supposed to carry doctorate-level understandings of the environmental impacts of all the various chemical pollutants that humanity has come up with, and their numerous effects on ecology and environment?
You want a Federal judge to be making aviation regulatory law now, rather than the career aerospace engineers at the FAA? Are Federal judges now suppo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If the EPA is such a blatantly illegal entity then why did anyone wait more than a half century to challenge it?
Perhaps because during that period the US supreme court was not controlled by the right and would have rejected any such challenges for political reasons? That's the problem with an openly political court, it becomes impossible to tell if their decisions are motivated by law or by politics. Worse, because the US supreme court has overall control of US law it means that you have an unelected, overtly political body in effective control of your country.
I agree it seems utterly ridiculous that your elected
Re: (Score:3)
That, ideally, is the right answer. The problem is Congress, particularly the House, is nonfunctional. This is causing a gradual escalation in the questionable exercise of Presidential authority, because the in practice the alternative is complete gridlock. The Constitution cannot function when when it is disregarded or applied in bad faith, and that's what we're seeing. For example, Republicans deciding th
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So instead of making an argument against the very obvious meaning of what they posted, you decided the better path was to split hairs and be a pedantic asshat.
Tell us you know you don't have a rational argument, without telling us you don't have a rational argument.
A much better way to go would have been to quote the actual Constitutional text with some removal of irrelevant run-on text in order to clarify the point, and then apply that to the two situations the OP was speaking of. For example:
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, [...] and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint [...] judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States
That's the a
Re: (Score:3)
Getting Away with Torture: The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees https://www.hrw.org/report/201... [hrw.org]
If you want to claim the US Supreme Court is unbiased & not at all corrupt, go ahead. Make your case.
Re:Political partisanship versus law (Score:5, Insightful)
So in the OP, the term "costly and ineffective" is used. Do you want a court to uphold something that's both costly and ineffective? The term *ineffective* is important here. Even if the law can be framed as intending to be a good law, should we still support it if it's ineffective?
That is what the states are saying, not the OP. Their claim. Do they have any evidence for this claim? I'm sure the people of Pennsylvania would like to see how "ineffective" this rule is considering they're the ones getting acid rain dumped on them from Ohio, or West Viriginia if the winds are right. But since PA has done studies about acid rain, which not only acidifies the soil making it more difficult for crops to grow but also denudes trees in their millions of acres of forest, or even alters the forests themselves, let's see what they found out.
Sulfate concentrations have decreased approximately 34% since 1983 [state.pa.us]. The statewide mean annual sulfate concentration in 2003 was 2.002 mg/L, the lowest reported to date. The reduction in sulfate concentrations resulted in an 11.2 kg/ha reduction in wet sulfate deposition across the State. The reported reduction in sulfate depositi on can be attributed to reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions in Pennsylvania and in upwind states.
According to Sharpe, Pennsylvania's forest soils for many decades have been absorbing acidic precipitation originating in the Ohio Valley - the greatest industrial complex in the world. "The acid comes from sulfur dioxide in the emissions from coal-fired generating plants in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, West Virginia and western Pennsylvania [whitetownship.org]. Our forests long have been the victim of the most acidic precipitation in North America and our data show that forests soils are much more acidic now than they were 40 to 50 years ago.
The 27 states regulated under CAIR accounted for more than 80% of both coal-fired electricity generation and national SO2 and NOx power sector emissions in 1997. The decline in emissions between 1997 and 2017 mostly occurred in these 27 states; Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana saw the greatest decline in SO2 emissions between 1997 and 2017 [eia.gov], while Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky saw the greatest decline in NOx emissions.
On all of these dates, the maps show that the direction of the wind currents came from the Ohio River Valley Basin [osti.gov] and blew in a northwest to southeast, west to east or a southwest to northeast direction. These winds could have carried pollution from this Basin and other areas in the Midwest into the southwestern Pennsylvania areas. Measurements show that all precipitation collection stations had a low pH at the time of the study. The industrial mills, along the Allegheny, Monogahela, and Ohio Rivers seem to have had a little or no effect on the low pH values measured at the closest station during the study period. The coal-burning power plants seem to have had an effect on the pH values of the precipitation samples collected at Station 3 during the course of the study.The data imply that pollution-carrying winds from the Ohio River Valley Basin contribute acidity to the three stations and Station 3 receives additional acidity from the surrounding coal-burning power plants.
I could go on, but I'm sure you'll find some excuse, just like those states, to claim this rule shouldn't be implemented because it's "ineffective".
Re: (Score:2)
That is what the states are saying, not the OP. Their claim. Do they have any evidence for this claim? I'm sure the people of Pennsylvania would like to see how "ineffective" this rule is considering they're the ones getting acid rain dumped on them from Ohio, or West Viriginia if the winds are right. But since PA has done studies about acid rain, which not only acidifies the soil making it more difficult for crops to grow but also denudes trees in their millions of acres of forest, or even alters the forests themselves, let's see what they found out.
Sulfate concentrations have decreased approximately 34% since 1983 [state.pa.us]. The statewide mean annual sulfate concentration in 2003 was 2.002 mg/L, the lowest reported to date. The reduction in sulfate concentrations resulted in an 11.2 kg/ha reduction in wet sulfate deposition across the State.
You should really leave that kind of analysis to the experts.
And no, I don't mean the scientists at the EPA with all their PhDs and years of experience.
I mean the judges who went to a fancy law school then struck the right balance of politically motivated opinions to get promoted when their party was in charge. Because once they overturn Chevron those are the folks who will be tasked with evaluating the scientific evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
"Dude. Those are just words. Nobody cares about words. They are complex and meaning is difficult to extract. I want money and I don't care about you. Fuck you, I am building a power plant and these rules can burn in hell."
Good luck sir. History says we will be breathing toxic fumes again shortly. Centralized power doesn't give a fuck about you and yours. Be part of the power or get fucked... and it is an exclusive club, so you probably can't join no matter how hard you try. Just roll over and die. You are a
Effectiveness not Relevant (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So in the OP, the term "costly and ineffective" is used. Do you want a court to uphold something that's both costly and ineffective? The term *ineffective* is important here. Even if the law can be framed as intending to be a good law, should we still support it if it's ineffective?
The phrase "costly and ineffective" was used by the states that profit from the production of this pollution (surprise surprise). They offer no evidence to support this claim. A little research turns up evidence to the contrary, suggesting that in fact this EPA was rule was quite effective.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all the style to paint the current supreme court as conservative, and list all the really awful decisions they make along with their political leanings. It give us so much outrage and clicks!
In reality, if anyone ever took the trouble to *read* their decisions, they would find that the court makes really well-researched decisions based on the law.
Let's reiterate that point: the court doesn't rule on whether something is *right*, it only rules on whether something is *legal*.
Ah NO! - They make a ruling on whether or not THEY INTERPRET something as legal. A perfect example is the republican desire to overturn the Roe V Wade Supreme Court decision from 1973. Obviously a previous Supreme Court had determined the legality of the issue but the current panel had been pretty much hand picked to make sure that they would come to a different conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems like a VERY selective time to apply that standard to a law.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is the Supreme Court involved in determining the "effectiveness" of regulations and legislation at all? That's not anywhere close to what their job is, and nowhere in Article III does it say that the Court should offer their judicial review on "effectiveness" of legislation or executive decision made in anything controlled by Article I or II. They decide if duly enacted regulation and legislation coming from the Legislative and Executive branches comply with pre-existing law and constitutionality.
They
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If you trust the EPA. you're fool... (Score:4, Interesting)
Banning DDT has killed untold millions due to fly and mosquito borne diseases.
Where? Which countries with significant deaths from these diseases have banned DDT?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Banning DDT has killed untold millions due to fly and mosquito borne diseases.
You're one of those people. I have an in-law by marriage that said "Rachel Carson is the biggest mass murderer in history". I already knew he was a Southern Baptist, but that really confirmed it.
I hope you like a uninhabitable planet because we keep killing everything. Humans cannot survive if they are the only species. We need a rich diversity for balance.
I like to think if there is a god, the real test is to get us to save the planet and live in harmony with it, not destroy it. How do you think God w
Re:If you trust the EPA. you're fool... (Score:4, Insightful)
1) DDT was never banned. It was restricted from widespread agricultural use. The reason it was restricted was due to the rise of resistance in mosquitoes [wikipedia.org] which was seen in the 50s. By the time it DDT was restricted in the 70s, it was was largely ineffective for widespread control of mosquitoes and other, more effective, alternatives had been developed.
2) The EPA has no control over other countries. Even if they had banned DDT in the USA, it would have no effect on other countries' policies.
3) The USA gets about five deaths per year from malaria, mostly from people who have travelled to other areas of the world where malaria is endemic. Using DDT in the USA would not make a significant difference.
So no. The EPA has not caused untold millions of death by restricting the use of DDT. Stop getting your 'news' from Facebook memes.
Re:If you trust the EPA. you're fool... (Score:5, Informative)
Why haven't any republican presidents fixed this problem?
They're of the mindset that the powers of government over businesses should be as limited as possible, unless that business is too woke. So, polluting the environment is okay, putting out press release saying your company fundamentally opposes a law which stifles the freedoms of LGBTQ+ youth is not.
Basically, they're a bunch of hypocrites who are more than happy to wield the "big government" hammer when it suits their agenda, but then when the other side does it, magically it becomes government overreach.
Oh lovely (Score:3)
Looking forward to leaded gasoline again and those pesky catalytic converters that are always getting stolen. I'm grateful for the EPA so the country no longer resembles 1940s Pittsburgh. https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
The representation America voted for (Score:1)
People were warned that a vote for Trump meant he'd be getting those lifetime SCOTUS seat appointments. This comic [condenaststore.com] could just as well be recaptioned to read "Yes, the planet got destroyed, but her emails."
I guess you could technically place the blame on our archaic system for electing the president, because enough Americans actually did have the good sense to hold their nose (yes, I'll completely admit it, Hillary was not a likable person) and vote for the candidate who wanted to preserve environmental pro
Re: (Score:2)
They're too busy investigating Hunter Biden.
Alexander Smirnov, a longtime FBI informant with ties to Ukraine, had claimed to have proof of Biden and his son Hunter accepting bribes from a Ukrainian oligarch. Republicans repeatedly touted Smirnov’s claims in their quest to impeach the president. But last week, the Justice Department announced that it was charging Smirnov with making a false statement and creating a false record related to the bribery allegation.
Now, in a detention memo filed Tuesday, t
Not true (Score:3)
As for the Senate, McConnell stonewalled 2 seats using procedural moves. Nobody voted for that.
Now, thanks to some crap McConnell did around the Filibuster if the Dems hold the Senate they will most likely take back SCOTUS. That's because Thomas & Alito are both highly vulnerable (well over 70, both can and should be criminally investigated, both would likely retire rather than let a criminal investigation interfere with their
Re:Not true (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the Senate, McConnell stonewalled 2 seats using procedural moves. Nobody voted for that.
The electorate in Kentucky voted for that.
Re: (Score:2)
The electorate in Kentucky voted for that.
Maybe, or more likely with US politics, they didn't vote for whatever another person proposed and was perceived as worse.
Politics especially in the USA is about choosing the perceived least worst thing. You vote for the person you hate least to represent you, and then pray at night that they don't do something you don't like.
This isn't Switzerland. No one is voting on specific issues, so yes literally no one in Kentucky voted for that... except McConnell.
I take it you're not American (Score:2)
No they did not (Score:2)
Voter suppression is a hell of a drug, and politicians like McConnell pick their voters, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the archaic system of proportional representation that we've got? I thought you lefties love proportional representation?
Please find me a legitimate poll where the majority of Americans are actually okay with the environment being trashed. Hell, even among the folks who think it's okay, they'd almost certainly change their tune and go all NIMBY the moment the pollution actually starts pouring through their faucets.
Re: (Score:1)
No, they only want representation for liberals and illegals.
Re: (Score:2)
WINNING! (Score:1)
Let them self-regulate their emissions! #trump2024
Legislating from the Bench (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress: We give the EPA broad authority to regulate pollutants because we can't keep up with how fast companies make new ways to pollute.
EPA: Thank you congress for a sensible mandate.
SCOTUS: That power is to broad because companies can't make enough money polluting in new ways and it cost them a lot in lawyer fees and process design. It's too uncertain how they can continue to pollute and make money. OVER RULED!
Corporate America: Thank you Mitch McConnel! Oh, and I guess Donald Trump too.
I thought legislating from the bench was the GPOs biggest feat under President Obama, besides the obvious reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought legislating from the bench was the GPOs biggest feat under President Obama, besides the obvious reasons.
Assuming you meant "fear".
Democrats and Republicans agree: Legislating from the bench is only bad if somebody else does it in ways that we don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, "fear" is what I mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate America: Thank you Mitch McConnel! Oh, and I guess Donald Trump too.
Elections have consequences. Remember that the EPA was created by a law passed by Congress then signed by a Republican POTUS, all of whom were elected to office by popular vote.
If Congress was truly concerned about air quality then they'd change the laws that have effectively banned new construction of nuclear power plants. It's obviously more complicated than that but it is certainly acts of Congress that kept new nuclear power plant construction to a mere handful in the last 40 to 50 years. The combine
Re: (Score:2)
I thought legislating from the bench was the GPOs biggest feat under President Obama, besides the obvious reasons.
It is just a symptom of a deep rot. They have won. There is not enough integrity to win against corruption anymore. The looting of the Savings and Loan system was the lynchpin. We are so fucked as a society.
Easy solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Put it in law. This sort of regulatory vagueness is just Congress not wanting to be held responsible for doing their job.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. The problem, as someone above alluded to, is that companies discover new ways to pollute faster than Congress can legislate...not that Republicans ever found pollution they couldn't tolerate as long as it was in those "other" places. And the amount of technical expertise required and how fast it changes is well-beyond Congress. Congress is mainly composed of lawyers, it isn't as though they have any scientific chops.
Also dropping it on Congress just gives companies a financial target for their c
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, those big, bad Repubwicans again!
Re: (Score:2)
The EPA was signed into law by a republican president, so the first half of your comment is ill-informed at best.
As, really, is the second part. Sure, companies can bribe elected officials who have to answer to their electorates. So... let's move the authority to unelected officials who don't have to answer to anyone much? Sure, that makes sense...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly correct. Using TLAs to spew endless "laws" (under the guise of regulations) and thereby isolating politicians from the electoral consequences of their decisions is unequivocally against the founders intent,
Having Congress have to pass each laws specifically was intended to prevent endless regulatory spew. The effect has been to create what in other countries is the "civil servant" class, which actually runs everything, with politicians being trensient figureheads
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The framers of the Constitution also lived in a pre-industrialized world, pre full auto guns, pre atomic etc. This is not abdication of responsibility, it's congress knowing it can't act fast enough and putting the power where it needs to be, just what the framers would have wanted.
I'm OK with courts striking down particular enforcement actions, but not gutting agencies simply because they can respond too quickly to potential harm.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, that has always been the excuse, congress is either not knowledgable enough or not fast enough.
Of course, that *was the intent* - to prevent an unelected shadow government with almost no restraints run the country.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, that partisan finger pointing I hear so much about...
Re: (Score:2)
If you want something non-trivial changed, Congress should be forced to pass that into law. That means you have to compromise and pass laws. Saying "but passing laws is hard!" is an excuse for them to not pass laws in general. And it's just more power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.
Re: (Score:2)
You say easy...you realize we're talking about Congress here, right?
Yeah, it's the solution, but not at all easy.
Re: (Score:3)
Put it in law. This sort of regulatory vagueness is just Congress not wanting to be held responsible for doing their job.
Congress not wanting to be held responsible for doing their job? Congress doesn't have a job anymore. They have a building they go to to make public spectacles. Not a damn one of them seems to understand what the job is actually supposed to be. It's a completely broken system, and the people stuck in Congress need to all be booted on their asses for allowing this stagnation of stupidity to continue for as long as it has. And yes, I mean every god damned one of them. Well-intentioned or not, if they're a par
Re: (Score:2)
Put it in law.
There are many things that are "easy" in the world. Passing legislation in the current US government isn't one of them. Shit they can't even pass legislation both sides agreed to one day without it failing the next. They are too busy fighting like grade schoolers.
Re: (Score:2)
It was specifically designed to be hard to pass shit.
It's a feature, not a defect.
Re: (Score:2)
What was designed (and what has happened the past several hundred years) and what is happening now are like comparing cheese to chalk made of dried shit. No one designed the system to be quite as dysfunctional as it currently is.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair, the nature of the populace has changed. Now it's mostly useless, worthless people. The govt reflects that.
Re:Easy solution (Score:4, Informative)
I would be the first to state that Congress is nigh-broken; but they are the only members of the government DIRECTLY beholden to voters, and they must use their sole power of legislation to cause things to positively happen - not just wave their hand to empower a faceless bureaucracy that they can blame when a policy (even a needful one) is unpopular.
And yet... Congress empowered these Federal Regulatory Agencies ... with legislation. Legislation passed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and signed by the President of the United States.
They did use the power of legislation. They used it to create federal agencies and empower them to take regulatory action. Congress also reserved to itself the authority to review and overturn any regulatory actions taken.
Agency power comes directly from Congressional legislative power, and comes with Congressional oversight.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Obviously. But they did it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Put it in law.
Moron! Absolute moron! Why do you think the EPA was created rather than a series of laws? The law is too rigid and slow to protect the people against rapidly advancing technologies that discover new ways to pollute and to detect pollution.
Stop knee-jerking laws or you will cause the entire system to fail.
(the naivete of youth is ... problematic at times)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I never thought of that. Fucktard.
Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Put some chimneys upwind of the Supremes' residences and see what they think.
Re: (Score:2)
Noooo! You can't do that. That will affect their quality of life. That isn't allowed.
If it affects your quality of life, so be it. Corporations are more important.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, make sure they are just across state lines.
Re: (Score:2)
its probably for the best. (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, in the larger picture, I think that I'm ok with this supreme court implementing the traditional-conservative agenda of drastically limiting the power of the executive branch. I mean, my feelings about the current guy are "kinda ok but meh" and I'd like him to get more done. But remember the dumpster fire who was in the white house last term? The same guy who has a serious shot about getting back into the oval office next term and acts like the love child of a tinpot dictator crossed and a special needs kid?
Yeeaaah, I really want some insurance in place so that guy can't freely implement his agenda.
It's way more important to limit executive power than to facilitate the agenda of the current guy.
I'm 100% behind the supreme courts efforts to put handcuffs on the POTUS. It'll keep us from getting stuff done, but it's far more important to limit the damage from the next guy that could be SERIOUSLY unhinged.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a wonderful Freudian slip!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, I saw the skies over Los Angeles in the 70s. I saw rivers on fire in the eastern part of the country. I have seen entire communities plagued with cancers.
FUCK YOU! Rivers. Actual fucking rivers of water. On fire. Just no. Absolutely fucking NO.
Re: its probably for the best. (Score:2)
The rule should apply to bullsh*t as well (Score:2)
Anyone downwind of bullsh*t should be able to sue to protect their way of life.
Dilution is the solution to pollution (Score:2)
Unwanted? (Score:2)
> downwind states that receive unwanted air pollution from other states
I would really like to see some wanted air pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
The plant owners (who don't live downwind) want the pollution,