Hate to break it to you, but this defeat on the EPA regs was a cinch

The Federal Courts have abdicated their role as administrators of what is good evidence a long time.

Conservatives and libs alike defer to agency interpretation of what a statute means and how they should act to comply–and of course that means–ANYTHING GOES THAT THE AGENCY CHOOSES.

Thank you Nino–you ninny.



5 responses to “Hate to break it to you, but this defeat on the EPA regs was a cinch

  1. Coach Springer

    On the plus side, some conservatives have advised states to ignore EPA rules. Not my favorite solution. There shouldn’t be an agency that promulgate such rules for such scant precaution in the first place. Having such an agency has already let the beast loose.

  2. Judge Kanavaugh’s statement “They want us to do something that they candidly acknowledge we have never done before: review the legality of a proposed rule” is interesting.
    It endorses the position one should not waste time preventing or extinguishing brush fires; one should wait until the fire has ignited into a full-blown conflagration before taking any action.

  3. Why do you say conservatives defer to this agency? Anyone who defers to this agency isn’t a conservative.

  4. Ultimately, the problem lies with Congress, delegating absurd amounts of authority to bureaucrats. But it also lies with organized churches buying into the idea that the need to tackle global warming is a tenet of their faith. The media also worships at the same church. It takes a lot of guts for a politician to defy this position, which is why few in Congress will step in to rein in EPA. Frankly, this DC Circuit panel of judges is far from being the most liberal on that court. They would have been charting new ground had they ruled for plaintiffs. Those entities already hurt from anticipating what they need to do now to comply with the final rule are incurring those costs because they know that no one in the federal government is going to stop EPA’s abuse of power. The process under the Administrative Procedures Act, however, is supposed to work so that public comment on proposed rulemaking results in a final rule that is reasonable. The problem, of course, is that this is no longer the case (if it ever was).

  5. I guess I’m a bit dumb. My understanding is that the current federal government is a product of the U.S. Constitution and subject to its authorizations and prohibitions, not those of the Articles of Confederation. My impression is that in a question of law over what the federal government is allowed to do, a court must refer to the Constitution as it is written and its intended meaning. Also, the Constitution overrides precedence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s