Reply to Thanks SC - we can look forward to the Potomac River Turing orange again now

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Thanks SC - we can look forward to the Potomac River Turing orange again now "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Why don't cons take seriously their god-demanded duty of good stewardship of this earth?

They'd never treat their own house and backyard the way they think polluters have a right to treat our waterways and air. It's as though they can't envision how this pollution will affect them in any way.[/quote]

Maybe, just maybe, people have a sincere belief that no matter how noble and just the goals of the EPA are, we cannot tolerate an administrative agency—in particular—that expansively interprets its own authority past the boundary of what the authority it has actually been given.  Consent of the governed and all that comes with it….

I don’t want pollution of the environment. But that doesn’t justify a power grab by an administrative agency. Nor am I willing to look the other way because the practical effects of this ruling will be a (temporary?) increase in pollution.  Call it fascism, authoritarianism, or power plays, but every tyrant has always believed in the justness of his cause. The only real protection for the people is to not go down that road in the first place.

Process and procedures matter in a democratic republic. [/quote]

+1000[/quote]

Minus 1,000

Judicial over reach of an unelected, highly partisan Supreme Court is harming our democratic republic. 
[/quote]

If only you felt that way about an unelected, partisan administrative state that actually undermines the constitutional order of checks and balances….

Again, 9 justices agreed the EPA went beyond its legal authority. This wasn’t a 5-4 decision. It was 9-0 on the judgment of the court, 5 in the majority and 4 concurring with the judgment. If you read the syllabus, you’ll kindly note that there were ZERO dissents filed in the case.

It’s incredible that in this highly partisan era the EPA just got hammered 9-0 on the substance of the issue and all the outrage here is at the justices when it should clearly be directed at the unelected EPA for abuse of it’s authority. [/quote]

They agreed EPA over reached in one narrow case: they did not agree that the CWA should be gutted.

SC is throwing the baby out with the bath water and at our critical point in history when scientists close to unanimously agree that climate change is reaching an irreversible tipping point. Wet lands are particularly vulnerable but essential parts of nature.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics