Posted on 04/19/2011 12:31:08 PM PDT by library user
The only solution is to now restrict the powers of the EPA via legislation.
With the current regime in place that is a long way off..............
We are definitely beyond fix. That leaves fight or flee...when we’re done fiddling, that is.
Bad legislation by bad legislators creating large agencies with broad powers is the problem, not court proceedings which would amount to legislating from the bench.
If we want good careful legislation, we must elect good legislators — few other remedies will due.
We keep trying to not have this country screwed up by their actions when the only way to have them accountable is for the giant screw-ups to go foreword. It takes a big mess to get our citizenry interested in government.
And that's only the damage we know about.
Basically the courts are saying they do not want to second guess the ‘experts’..................
since all parties use the words “climate change” should not there be a motion to dismiss based simply upon the fraud therein represented?
Translation: Get someone else to do your dirty work, we aren’t playing.
You are dreaming if you think the Ballot box is still viable.
“I’m from the Government, and I’m here to....”
[BANG]
“HELP!!!!!!!!..............”
Every people has their cultural breaking point. As bad as things are in the US, we haven't yet hit ours. Wait until folks can't afford groceries or gasoline any longer. That'll be the point.
Very good point, Pabiance. I sometimes tell people that the revolution's already begun (nodding to the 2010 midterms and the Tea Party).
Excerpt:
* * * Economy: The model of centralized elite banking management has been an abject failure. All central banks in history that have used fiat money -- most of which financed both sides of wars -- have failed in that they have bankrupted their nations and only have enriched those in control. The current exposure of the U.S. Federal Reserve is finally reaching a crescendo, but our managers are already a step ahead discussing the endgame of a one-world currency to solve the inadequacies of the past. I think we have had enough examples of their central planning skills.Health: Between the EPA, FDA, and USDA -- just to cite U.S. agencies -- our elite researchers, scientists, and policy makers have been responsible for millions of deaths, conservatively. And it is only getting worse, as this global health tyranny aims to criminalize the food and supplements that are actually proven to extend our lives. The key poisons they enable include: mercury, aspartame, MSG, (most) vaccines, and GMO's; all proven to reduce cognition, bodily health, and life expectancy.Environment: Fukushima is only the latest in a long history of corporate/government mismanagement with global consequences. Experts claiming to show the benefits and safety of their advice continuously bombard us. Yet, our planet has now endured multiple nuclear meltdowns, oil spills, fracking-induced earthquakes, and global fallout from wars using depleted uranium -- all of which have contaminated Earth and poisoned future generations beyond imagining. The only success these elites can document is the mass killing by dictators like Genghis Khan, Mao, Hitler, and Stalin who eliminated a conservative total of over 100 million people, thus reducing CO2. Well done if you are a nihilist.
With such a track record of desolation for all but the top directors, we had best pay attention to their own words about what direction they have in store for us next.
Most alarming about this semi-clandestine meeting is that the very premise upon which they base this need for global orchestration -- Global Warming -- has been thoroughly debunked by any climatologist not beholden to a government sponsored think tank or agency. Their famously cited Plan B for inevitable climate change is nothing more than a wish list for those who wish to de-industrialize productive nations and consolidate control through wealth redistribution. Not a good way to start saving people.
And Yada, Yada, Yada
I am confused by the responses here.
This lawsuit, if allowed to continue, would have established that individual States can sue “carbon emitters” (i.e. energy production) in other States based upon a rather dubious claim of harm to the citizens of their State.
Striking down this case is the right thing to do.
Acknowledging the EPA isn’t, but as a mechanism Congress has put in place to regulate interstate commerce such that State A cannot sue to halt energy production in State B, it seems to fit the bill.
Now, I certainly invite any Constitutional law scholars out there to check my assumptions, but I think this is where we are:
Only Congress might presently act to withdraw authority from the agency through legislation - which they certainly will not do as long as the Democrats control the Senate. Otherwise,a specific challenge would need to be brought before the Supreme Court, invalidating the agency's power as an extra-Constitutional exercise of executive authority. But, given the expansive view the Court has long taken toward the Commerce Clause and toward executive prerogatives generally, I don't see that happening either.
So you guys are a normal court guided by principles of justice, until it comes to Obamacare or global warming.
Then you’re a panel of Stalinists.
And that's only the damage we know about.
That's for sure. Knowing all the socialists/academics/czars have access to all kinds of classified data makes one lose sleep at night. Sleep? Do you want a list? When we're talking about us, it's one thing, but when you're talking about our kids, grandkids and the obligation to generations unborn, it's a different story. What, me worry?
establishment, not reestablishment.
The new system will inevitably fall in similar manner, later on.
This is the mechanism through which we progress.
Thank you for your reply.
My thoughts in general:
^%$(^ )(@#%$ %&%^$#!!!!
Thank you again.
My very best to you.
I can’t say that I’m certain which side is right here. The argument seems to be whether states should enforce eco-fascism on us or whether that role should be left to the EPA.
The 6 states cannot sue the power company demanding millions? Maybe I am missing something but after reading the article I understand it that these 6 states want money for greenhouse gases that these power companies have released but the power companies are saying no because there are actually no guidelines yet in how much gases they can release?
Gen. Neal Kumar Katyal, acting solicitor general at the Department of Justice, representing the Tennessee Valley Authority, argued Tuesday that the case should be dismissed because it is nearly impossible to directly link greenhouse-gas emissions back to the five power companies in question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.