Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘EPA’

… You Mean that They Knew [#EPA][#Co Mine Disaster]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,August 28th,2015

.. and did nothing ..

.. it figures ..

.. worse yet , they are in C.Y.A. mode . The media has a hot ” hard on ” for this story , and for obvious reasons . Well , the EPA is covering its ” Six ” over this . Extensive parts of the documents that the EPA has released have been redacted ..

.. [h/t — Townhall.com(Tipsheet)]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. those knuckleheads royally messed up . They should have prepared for the situation at hand , and been ready for contingencies . Among them should have been communications from the site . Well , they were not . It took them three whole days to notify the public , by which time the story was long past ” Katie bar the door … ”

.. nice going , dummies !! …

Advertisements

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… i hope Dick Morris is Right …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,June 9th,2014

.. he is , of course , referring to the newly published and adopted so – called ” climate change ” regulations …

.. given what ” Dingy Harry ” Reid has done to the D.C. Appeals Circuit , it will take awhile for it to get to the US Supreme Court ..

.. [h/t — newsmax]..
.. [link] to the statement ..

.. the idiots on the court may try to play fast and cute with the case in order to speed it up or especially to slow it down . The cast of characters on the Supreme Court could well change before the case gets there . If it does , then the potential outcome could change drastically …

.. Right now , I can see it going 6 – 3 (conservatives , plus Breyer) , or possibly 6 – 2 (ditto , minus Kagan , since this started when she was Solicitor General) …

Posted in body of law, legal info, legal strategy, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… the DemoCraps have a Serious Problem [#Climate Change fraud]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,June 8th,2014

.. Well , His Lordship brought forth his proposal for climate change . It is a real honey . It perpetrates a fraud , called climate change [also , ” global warming “] , and seeks to impose it on our economy …

.. well , the ObamaCraps have a various serious problem : They have next to no DemoCrap support . The Dems understand that the imposition of this proposal is economic suicide . Also , this proposal has no provision in the law for the E.P.A. to impose it . Also , there is no science to back it up …

.. [h/t — m.Newsbusters]..
.. [link] to the interview footage …

.. as Jake Tapper [CNN] indicated to EPA administrator Gina McCarthy , these proposals lack any serious DemoCrap support , as well as lack any foundation in the law . So , how does the Administration propose to save these proposals …

.. there is a very real threat that a veto – proof majority in both chambers of Congress will vote to overturn these proposals . Having to vote on them will put DemoCraps on the spot . Even Dingy Harry , who is up for re – election in 2016 . Reid may want to stop this , but can he ? He may not have the votes …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… So , What is the Next Regulatory Target [for the ObamaCraps?] …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,April 16th,2014

.. cow farts …

.. yea , something that comes in (and out) naturally …

.. [h/t — HotAir]..
.. [link] to the article …

.. yes , you read it right . The ObamaCrap dummies want to regulate methane emissions … and guess who is the biggest source thereof ?? …

.. you got it ! … cows ! .. no , not natural gas production , not even fracking , but the natural occurence of the digestive process of cows [cow farts] … yummy !! …

.. and those idiots actually want to try to regulate it . Believe it or not ….

Posted in accountability, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Absurdity begets Absurdity …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,October 15th,2013

.. at least , now , we get a chance to whack back at the Climate Science lunatics . After the  judicial fraud in Mass V EPA , we get a chance to get even with those idiots . Their attempts at so – called ” global warming science ” have been debunked . The follow on science behind their pursuit of climate change is not far behind . And now , with the new case ,  Utility Air Reg Group v EPA  , we have a chance to hit back …

… from Professor Jonathan Adler , @ the Volokh Conspiracy …

This morning, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA concerning the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. This is quite significant. Although the grant is limited, it focuses on one of the most important legal questions raised by this litigation, and puts some of the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources in play.

Harvard’s Richard Lazarus comments:

The Court’s jurisdictional ruling is significant in terms of both what the Court granted and did not grant. The regulations the Court has agreed to review represent the Obama Administration’s first major rulemaking to address the emissions of greenhouse gases from major stationary sources across the country. At the same time, the Court declined to review EPA’s determination that greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles endanger public health and welfare and therefore has left intact the government’s current regulation of motor vehicles emissions to address climate change.

I largely agree, but would go farther in certain respects.

Here’s some background (see also my prior posts here and here). Various states, industry groups, and activist organizations had filed cert petitions – nine in total – and others filed amicus briefs (including yours truly) urging the Court to take this case. The Court was asked to consider many different questions, but only agreed to consider one of its own devising. Specifically, the Court granted six of the nine petitions and agreed to consider the following question: “Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.” In other words, the Court wants to know whether the EPA was required to apply Section 165 and Title V of the Act to greenhouse gases once it regulated GHGs from motor vehicles. If not, the EPA need not have rewritten these portions of the Act to avoid the “absurd results” of applying these provisions to carbon dioxide.

In my view, the grant is welcome, despite the limitations. Many of the questions for which industry sought review, such as whether the EPA properly considered the relevant scientific research or set permissible standards for vehicular emissions under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, were not cert worthy. The issue embodied in the Court’s reformulated question presented, on the other hand, most definitely is. While I would have liked the Court to reconsider Massachusetts v. EPA, particularly given that decisions adoption of faulty premises about how the Clean Air Act works, such a grant would have been a heavy lift. The Court does not lightly reconsider its own statutory interpretations. This is still a welcome grant. (That’s my view, however, as I suspect Professor Lazarus disagrees.)

So the Court will not reconsider Mass v. EPA in this case, but the question presented will force the Court to confront the consequences the Mass decision. In particular, this case will force the Court to reconsider the assumption made by Justice Stevens in Mass v. EPA that application of the Clean Air Act to GHGs would not produce absurd results. As we’ve since learned, applying the CAA to GHGs does produce such results, particularly if the regulation of GHGs under Section 202 requires regulation of GHGs under the Clean Air Act’s Title V and PSD provisions. These portions of the Act expressly require the EPA (and state permitting authorities) to regulate more facilities than it could ever hope to have the resources to regulate. The EPA has used this fact to justify rewriting the Act in its regulations, and so the Court’s grant presents the opportunity to question whether the EPA should have at least considered an alternative construction of the Act. In other words, the Court now has the opportunity to force the EPA (and the D.C. Circuit) to adopt an interpretation of the CAA that vindicates the Court’s interpretation in Mass v. EPA by avoiding the absurd results EPA’s approach has generated. We’ll see whether the Court actually takes that opportunity.

… LEC here again — the grant of “certiorari” may well be limited , at least at this time . However , indirectly , it gives the Court a chance to revisit the logic behind the science behind the decision , as well as the law .

.. given the reputation of some times that the link may not work , I wanted to include a copy of a [Clean Air Act as Obstacle (Greenhouse Gas regs)] to Professor Adler ‘ s new paper … oops , wrong [lProliferation of GHG Reg under the OC [Adler]]

.. Remember , a great deal of the “ClimateGate” monkeyshines has come out since 2007 , and in the case of the ObamaCrap antics , since 2009 . The Supreme Court cannot ignore that , and that the lack of effect of the greenhouse gases on our climate is clear and undeniable . The Court used that effect the last time in Mass to help rope in the regulation , now the other side can use logic , science , and the law to “cut the rope …”

Posted in constitutional opinion, economic opinion, legal opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »