Red states and industrial lobbyists are getting their trial against the EPA underway, and their attack on the government is of course THE SCIENCE ISN’T SETTLED!
Heavy industry groups and states argued in a federal court on Tuesday that U.S. environmental regulators had used faulty science in determining that greenhouse gas emissions endangered human health in the latest attempt to dismantle the Obama administration’s rules on the emissions.
During the first of two days of arguments on a case that seeks to overturn Environmental Protection Agency regulations, Harry MacDougald, a lawyer for the petitioners, said uncertain evidence was used to reach “90 percent” certainty that human emissions are responsible for harmful climate change.
Too bad the judges aren’t buying it.
The three judges hearing the case appeared to resist deciding on whether the EPA’s science was sufficient, with U.S. Circuit Judge David Tatel pointing out the agency had found the science certain enough.
“To win here, you have to make an argument that EPA’s decision is actually arbitrary and capricious,” Tatel said.
But it doesn’t matter, of course. No matter what the decision here, the case will be decided by SCOTUS eventually and given the fact that in practically every major business law case before the Roberts court that the court has sided with big business, I don’t see anything being different here. At the very least they stall until a new President comes in and tells the EPA to go suck on a smokestack and the regs are dropped. That’s certainly what business wants to see happen, and you can bet these same lobbies are giving heavily to see President Obama defeated.
Yutsano
OT: did anyone else just get a Forbidden error on the last refresh?
kdaug
SCOTUS – all climate scientists, right?
rea
Well, I’ve been burned before by saying, “Even a wingnut-dominated Supreme Court couldn’t do that!” Nevertheless, it’s hard to believe that even the Roberts Court would abandon the “arbitrary and capricious” standard for review of adminstrative decisions . . .
Baud
“At the very least they stall until a new President comes in and tells the EPA to go suck on a smokestack and the regs are dropped.”
Not likely, unless Obama loses reelection. The DC Circuit will decide this case sometime in the summer or early fall. At the latest, the case will be before SCOTUS by fall of 2013, which means a decision in 2014. If the DC Circuit affirms the EPA, no real way SCOTUS can wait until 2017 to overrule the EPA.
jibeaux
It this eco-thread open enough for me to ask if anyone has found a decent dimmable CFL/LED/other eco-friendly light bulb? Preferably a nice small bulb.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
It’s all part of the conservative plan.
I remember when all the usual culture war wailing was going on during the Roberts and Scalito nomination process. However, there were a few lone voices out there saying that both men weren’t being nominated for their hatred of abortion rights inclinations (hidden but presumed) but for their pro-bidness UBER ALLES judicial outlook.
So this comes as no surprise. The entire point of stacking the judiciary with conservative appointees and then fighting tooth and nail against Democratic nominations was insurance against the slim possibility that the House and Senate might someday not be in the back pocket of the polluters and banksters.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
Another reason why the Snowe not running thing is very good news for liberals. While they are losing the pol debate on so many issues, Republicans are increasingly circling the wagons with their attacks and messaging appearing to soften up the legal battlefield for the current wingnut SCOTUS to turn back the clock in big ways.
So every senate seat could be a matter between holding the fort, and maybe even turning the tide on the SCOTUS. Or, it could go the other way.
And BTW, Zandar, your posts are simply thought provoking terrific lately, Cole did something right bringing you on board.
Zach Pruckowski
Knowing the Roberts court, they’ll leave “arbitrary and capricious” intact, but redefine those words to mean something so loose that it completely undermines the standard. For instance, “arbitrary” could mean “acting without hearing the opinion of every US citizen past, present, and future” or “unreasonably privileging the testimonies of ‘so-called experts’ over the testimonies of lobbyists”.
c u n d gulag
In all fairness, the Red States are just trying to return the favors that Blue States do them.
We give them tax dollars.
They’ll give us smog and polluted water.
NCSteve
This is a straightforward application of Chevron USA v. NRDC, the case mandating deference to agency interpretations of the laws they are in charge of executing and imposing the arbitrary and capricious standard to overturn them. Roberts is going to be reluctant to hollow out a rule of deference to the executive with one of his patented “we’re actually deferring and applying this precedent we’re wiping our asses with before we flush it down the john” specials. Especially when he knows that that same rule of deference will enable the next Republican president to just trash the regs if they do it right.
Zifnab
@comrade scott’s agenda of rage:
It doesn’t really matter. Do you really think the Dems were going to win by accusing a nominee of being too business friendly?
“This judge sides with big business too often”
“No shit! That’s why we support him.”
“Oh… yeah.”
:-p These weren’t Claurance Thomas style judges or Robert Bork style judges. These are Scalia-style through and through. Nothing really solid to object over, except the fact that you know you aren’t going to like their rulings.
If only Bush had nominated Alberto Gonzales or John Bolton, the Dems might have had something substantial to object to. But for Roberts/Scalito, the abortion card was probably the strongest one in the Democrats’ deck. Roberts, in particular, countered the argument by chanting “stare decisis” forty million times.
beergoggles
@jibeaux: All the small dimmable ones I’ve seen are CCFL. I’ve been in the market for a reliable PAR16 dimmable myself and so far it’s been halogens only.
Zandar
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero): Thanks, Stuck. :)
Mary
Not that I would put anything past this SCOTUS, but the bar to overturn agency regulations on the basis of faulty agency fact-finding is really REALLY damn high. I know he’s fully capable of it, but Scalia would really have to twist himself into knots in order to rationalize the decision.
Steve
The deep irony of this case is that one of the industry’s arguments is that the EPA actually isn’t doing enough to regulate greenhouse gases. Yes, you read that correctly!
This all originates from a 2007 case called Massachusetts v. EPA where several states sued the EPA and the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ended up telling the EPA that greenhouse gases fit the definition of a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and so the EPA has no choice but to regulate them.
That case involved the Bush-era EPA, the same one that said it was safe to breathe the air at Ground Zero, and naturally the current EPA isn’t entirely hostile to doing something about global warming. But here’s the problem. Unlike the substances that we usually think of as pollutants, carbon dioxide is everywhere. For any given chemical, there are a limited number of factories and other facilities that produce it, and the EPA knows how to regulate them. But everyone produces CO2, and according to the EPA, regulating CO2 the way other pollutants are regulated would multiply the number of regulated facilities by a factor of 140. If this is even physically possible, they would have to hire thousands of new regulators to do it, and of course Congress isn’t going to give them the money for that.
So the EPA can’t really enforce the Supreme Court decision as written, and everybody knows it. Accordingly, they did the common-sense thing and passed a “tailoring rule” that says, basically, they’re going to set the thresholds higher and only focus their limited resources on regulating the very biggest producers of greenhouse gases. This is a great solution, but the problem is, the Clean Air Act doesn’t actually allow the EPA to raise those thresholds. They’re written right into the statute itself and only Congress can change them.
So the industry, in addition to the arguments that Zandar talks about in this post, is also arguing that the EPA has no choice but to enforce the law as written – knowing full well that the EPA simply can’t do it. Their hope is to take this back up to the Supreme Court and convince them to reverse Massachusetts v. EPA by showing them that they effectively forced the EPA to do the impossible and maybe they should reconsider. Incidentally, the author of the Massachusetts v. EPA decision was Justice Stevens, who has since retired.
Redshift
@Zifnab:
Demonstrating that it didn’t really matter what objections were brought against his nomination, since he was willing to lie as much as necessary in response.
Chief Justice Smilin’ Sociopath…
Brachiator
The case is still being argued in District Court, so any panicky speculation about the case even getting to the Supremes, let alone speculatiion about a decision, is premature.
currants
@Yutsano: Yep. And FYWP besides.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
It is very difficult for wingers to find judicial relief on regs in the Federal Register. Judges are not scientists, and are loath to interfere with the lengthy process of publishing regs. A process with many steps and public meetings for opponents to voice their objections, and have those issues dealt with.
The status quo, has for decades been a dance of either repubs or dems that hold the WH, to start the process to change, or change back the regs accordingly to their ideologies. Judges much prefer this process be altered by the political process. Unless those regs or laws are being outright violated, as well as procedures in place to change them.
When Reagan came into office with a landslide and a sizable mandate, his administration went straight for the jugular on gutting environmental regs, as well as any laws that regulated business in a way that hurt the bottom line. By simply not enforcing existing regs and the laws they came from. He got not only smacked down hard by the courts, his public opinion approval plummeted as well, until they changed course to do it the legal way. People bitch about the federal government and its machine like way of following procedures and regulations, but they like the services they provide. And when those services are with held, they scream bloody murder. Stupid country, just how it is.
Zifnab
@Redshift: Right, well, what do you do about that? Drag him back before the Senate and threaten impeachment? :-p
The President gets to nominate new SCOTUS judges and the Senate is mostly just a rubber stamp after that. That’s one reason why Presidential contests are so important.
Democratic Nihilist, Keeper Of Party Purity
@jibeaux: The Home Depot EcoSmart LED bulbs are dimmable, have a nice light and are fairly cheap. The Phillips LED bulbs have a light indistinguishable from incandescents, are dimmable, but are still pretty expensive. I have had VERY poor luck with dimmable CFLs.
What are you using it for?
Violet
Speaking of giving heavily, I got a call from someone from the Obama campaign asking me to donate. They started with, “We’d like you to commit to donating $150.” I burst out laughing, and he responded with something along the lines of “that’s our top donor mark and not everyone can donate that much. Can you commit to $50?” I told him I was going to give, but not right now. And he wouldn’t let it go. He wanted me to commit to giving $10. He wanted to mail me something so I could donate by mail. He just went on and on. I kept repeating that I was planning to give, but not right now. Finally I told him he was starting to annoy me, and he hung up on me!
Color me not very impressed. I am going to donate, but I don’t give any money over the phone. I have it budgeted in and will give when it’s the right time for me, which I tried to explain to the guy, but he wasn’t hearing it. If I were a wavering Obama supporter, this kind of thing would have really put me off.
Steve
@Brachiator: Hmm, no. The case is in the D.C. Circuit, which is why Circuit Judge David Tatel is quoted above.
Steve in DC
Honestly I’ll give a rats ass what the greens think when they stop crying about nuclear which is the only way to get enough base grid power out of our current situation. Till they do that, and cheer for it, go coal, go oil, and fuck the assholes into the ground and make them rot for it.
Now, if you want to talk nukes, then yeah, let’s tackle fossil fuels and get rid of them. But if you don’t, yeah.. fuck you, more coal more coal MOAR COAL!
Democratic Nihilist, Keeper Of Party Purity
James Murdoch out at News International.
Looks like this phone hacking thing’s got some legs after all.
Democratic Nihilist, Keeper Of Party Purity
@Steve in DC: Right there with you. Asking people to accept the kinds of massive cuts to their standard of living that going to non-nuclear energy alternatives would entail is not going to fly, and I say this as both a proponent and user of solar power.
jibeaux
@Democratic Nihilist, Keeper Of Party Purity: A new dining room chandelier, it has clear bulb covers that look a bit like stemless wine glasses. I thought the smaller the bulb, the more attractive, since they won’t have shades or anything. I also have one older ceiling-flush light fixture that won’t accomodate the CFLs I’v bought because they’re a bit too big for the cover.
jibeaux
@Democratic Nihilist, Keeper Of Party Purity: Interesting, they look kind of like a cupcake.
fasteddie9318
@rea:
Don’t worry. It’s the Roberts Court, so they’re guaranteed to use some arbitrary and capricious standard in reaching a decision. I know that’s not really what you meant, but at least all the same words are there.
PeakVT
@c u n d gulag: This isn’t a red state/blue state issue. We’re pretty much all energy hogs in the US, and there are coal-fired power plants all over the country.
@Steve in DC: That’s a moronic comment.
Linda Featheringill
@c u n d gulag:
Amen. I get tired of their biting the hands that feed them.
mark
peace agreement with North Korea. suspended nuclear activities, suspended missile tests, full inspections, for food aide and “cultural, educational, and sports exchanges between the US and NK”
mark
peace agreement with North Korea. suspended nuclear activities, suspended missile tests, full inspections, for food aide and “cultural, educational, and sports exchanges between the US and NK”
Brachiator
@Steve:
True. I was thinking Circuit and typing District.
Either way, speculation about how the Supremes will rule on a case that has not come before them is dumber than Fantasy League Football.
c u n d gulag
@Linda Featheringill:
Yeah, they’re the state “Welfare Queens” who are screaming about welfare – for real people.
Kind of like the “Morans” out parading and screaming about “Socialized Medicine” in their ‘5th Armed/Motorized Medicare Scooter Cavalry Divisions,” and at the same time wheeling around signs saying “Keep Your Goverment Hands Off of Medicare!”
Or, more like – “Kep yer gubmint hans of of medekare, Niger!”
fasteddie9318
@Steve in DC: Right on! I burn a small pile of coal every time I hear the word “green,” just in case.
fasteddie9318
@mark: If history is any guide, they’ll take the food aid, which frankly we should be providing anyway, then concoct some grand offense to justify backing out of their end of the agreement.
Martin
@mark: Yep. Good stuff. One more thing rolling Obama’s way. Now to see if Iran can come around. New round of sanctions hits today. This part is actually pretty shocking:
That’s really a big change in attitude. If it’s serious, this might really go somewhere.
Linda Featheringill
@mark: #33
North Korea:
http://news.yahoo.com/us-north-korea-suspend-nuclear-activities-150339093.html
Looks to be the real thing. Wonderful! Yes, I know that doesn’t mean that all the problems are solved but perhaps the process has begun.
some guy
Honestly I’ll give a rats ass what the Koch Brothers think when they stop crying about regulations which is the only way to get enough toxic chemicals out of our children’s lungs. Till they do that, and cheer for it, go smokestack scrubbers, go massive taxes on polluters, and fuck the assholes into the ground and make them rot for it.
rlrr
@Linda Featheringill:
Expect outrage from the Republican Presidential candidates.
Why? Because Obama had something to do with it…
fasteddie9318
@some guy: Well now that’s just intemperate. President Snowe would be in tears after reading that.
Elizabelle
@Democratic Nihilist, Keeper Of Party Purity:
re Murdoch: I am so hoping the British scandal will engulf Rupert’s American network as well.
Wondering how the drip, drip, drip is affecting Roger Ailes, who sounds ready for lunacy already (stories about his obsession with privacy at his NY estate).
Culture of Truth
We saw last night Ricky pivot away from “condoms are teh work of satan” and to “drill baby drill”, which apparently is what gets them excited these days.
some guy
output from Steve in DC’s typical coal fired power plant:
3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming–as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.
500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.
10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.
720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.
220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.
225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.
Pococurante
@Violet:
“I’m not in a position to donate at this time. I support the Obama administration in many things, and appreciate your hard work helping out our candidate. Best wishes.”
Just that easier. And it’s actually better for them since they have to get on to the next potential donor and they don’t get a lot of courtesy from most of those they call.
mai naem
I hope every single energy company executive has a kid or grandkid or really some person that they really really care about has severe asthma. They they can whine about pollutants.
c u n d gulag
@some guy:
I’d bet the Kochsucker Brothers have spent more money on tax attorneys and getting right-wing anti-tax loon politicians elected, than they would have if they paid the appropriate tax rates.
And wouldn’t THAT be ironic?
Mike Goetz
Also (OT), the Obama Administration released a package of rules for detention under the NDAA that essentially line-item vetoes the mandatory indefinite military detention provisions in the law.
I love it when a plan comes together.
Martin
@fasteddie9318:
Yeah, that certainly has been the track record, but in totalitarian regimes leadership changes are pretty much everything. There is no politics there which would necessarily drive them back to old habits. It’s pretty much all the whim of the dude at the top, and if he says that the sky is green, then today it’s green. So, we’ll see – but it’s a bit interesting that pretty much right out of the gate the new guy didn’t back the old attitude. That’s unusual.
fasteddie9318
@some guy: EXACTLY! That is some awesome shit! Fuck those fucking Greens, amirite?
Martin
@Mike Goetz:
We can still blame him for Congress voting on it, right?
zach
If the Supreme Court blocks EPA action here, it’ll be another one-off ruling on some technicality with explicit instructions as to how it should never ever be used in future legal challenges to regulations. My not-lawyer impression is that reversing Chevron (which gave regulatory agencies leeway to make scientific findings) would cause total chaos and already-overloaded courts with the huge burden of evaluating scientific literature.
A good argument against CO2 mitigation regulations under the Clean Air Act would be to accept the governments’ endangerment finding, but argue that there’s no evidence that the proposed cure will do anything (as the proposed caps won’t lower US emissions all that much and will do nothing about other countries’ emissions). CO2’s long atmospheric half-life, global effect, and lack of a needed international treaty differentiate it from NOx/SOx and ozone emissions where there was rapid international consensus and US action alone would’ve had major local and global benefits. Such a ruling wouldn’t apply to many other regulations and could only be overcome legislatively. It’s easy to imagine judges lapping this up whilst interpreting the “original meaning” of the Clean Air Act: “Counselor, are you saying that Congress was authorized expensive regulations without any proven environmental impact?” This could even be cast as being in line with the Court’s earlier CO2 decision.
The “tailoring rule” gambit seems to be similar… that this is an unusual regulation in that it arbitrarily picks and chooses where CO2 is regulated. But that’s hardly unprecedented… the new mercury rule only applies to coal and oil electricity plants, but not coal- and oil-fired boilers. Accepting the tailoring-rule argument would make it unbearably expensive to enforce many additional clean-air regulations. There’s maybe 3 votes on the Court who’d welcome that sort of chaos.
fasteddie9318
@Martin:
My skepticism is that frankly we don’t know if there’s really been a leadership change other than in terms of its public face. How much control was the military officer corps and the top bureaucracy exerting even before Kim Jong the Second died? I’m not arguing against the deal; if all it accomplishes is getting some food to starving North Koreans, then I’m all for it.
some guy
Asking people to accept the kinds of massive cuts to their standard of living that keeping cancerous chemicals out of the lungs of their kids, and stopping the world from becoming uninhabitable for their great grandchildren more stringent regulations would entail is not going to fly, and I say this as both a proponent and user of solar power.
SiubhanDuinne
O/T, but has anyone heard from jeffreyw today? I think he lives right in the path of those storms that killed 10 people in Harrisburg, IL and did a lot of damage in Branson, MO overnight.
Am at work but will check back hoping to hear he and Mrs. J and all the animals are safe.
Violet
@Pococurante:
That’s basically what I said to him. I didn’t thank him for his hard work on behalf of the campaign, but I was quite polite and told him I planned to donate but not right now. I didn’t take him up on his offer to send me pledge info because I don’t want the campaign to waste their money mailing me literature. I could have been rude or hung up on him, but I didn’t. I was polite and courteous and hoped he’d be the same way with me. He wasn’t. I felt like I was being badgered.
You can tell me how I should have responded, but my point wasn’t really about me. It was about how a wavering Obama supporter might feel if they got the same call. The guy wouldn’t stop and it ticked me off and I’m a big Obama supporter. A wavering supporter might respond a lot more negatively.
fasteddie9318
@Martin:
Obviously. The legislation that was passed was obviously what he really wanted, power of the office, bully pulpit, fight, blah, &c.
Mike Goetz
@Martin:
I’d be disappointed if we didn’t.
MattR
@Martin:
Yes we can still blame him for signing the bill since history does not end with Obama and future presidents can easily rescind his rules while leaving indefinite detention codified in law.
(EDIT: To be clear, I am happy that Obama issued those rules. I just don’t think that gives him a free pass on signing a bill with that odious provision in the first place)
eemom
@fasteddie9318:
I agree with you. From everything I’ve read there is zero reason to believe that the 27 year old, totally inexperienced son of Kim Jong-Il is actually running the show.
As for their nukes, I frankly don’t give a shit. What I care about is the fact that that country is basically a hell on earth for its people, and I don’t see “exchanges, including in the areas of culture, education, and sports” doing anything to change that. Every “exchange” they have is tightly scripted to perpetuate the lies of the regime.
Culture of Truth
balsa wood planes – oldie but a goodie
Mike Goetz
@MattR:
On cue.
Culture of Truth
We’re sending North Korea all our shuttlecocks! *
* MASH reference
fasteddie9318
@eemom:
To be fair, the assumption of power by top military officers and/or bureaucrats could actually represent a change in leadership depending on how much direct control Kim Jong-Il actually had. We just don’t know enough about that country.
MattR
@Mike Goetz: If you want to defend Obama’s decision (EDIT: to initially sign the bill) on political or practical merits, that is one thing. But don’t pretend that passing rules that limit the impact of the law is the same as not having the law on the books.
(EDIT 2: Would you be cheering so loudly if Gov McConnell signed the transvaginal ultrasound bill in Virginia while also coming up with a reason why his administration would not currently enforce it?)
amused
@MattR: Using vaginas as political ploy isn’t just for ‘baggers anymore, eh? FOAD, whiner.
Southern Beale
Yeah but it doesn’t matter because the economics are against them. People are making the changes anyway because it makes economic sense. Solar grid parity is already here in a number states, states like California have passed strict air quality regulations and it’s still the 9th largest economy in the world, no one is going to tell California to stuff it and buy their equipment somewhere else. The EU has started carbon trading and that’s a market that America’s financial greed machine won’t ignore.
This is all political theater for the GOP base. It’s not going to matter long-term. Where it will matter is more locally, in things that impact smaller communities. But it’s easier to fight back locally too, because the issue is more personal to people. They may not care about acid rain killing a lake in Vermont somewhere but they do care about the people in their community drinking tainted water.
trollhattan
@jibeaux:
From my storeshelf perusals, a number of LED 110V screw-in replacement lamps are dimmable, but read the packaging carefully because many are not.
I’ve not found small dimmable CFL “regular bulb” replacements, but do have a few that fit either ceiling cans or outdoor lights with photocell switches. Those seem to work fine and last a long while.
On the topic, I replaced 150 watts worth of halogens in our range hood with 10 watts of LED alternates. wife.gov is happy with them, so my first foray into LED home lighting is a hit (so long as they last in that harsh environment).
MattR
@amused: Wow, I should fuck off and die for pointing out how stupid it would be to congratulate McConnell in that scenario? How exactly is that using vaginas as a political ploy? In that case I assume you have told all the front pagers here who have condemned these assaults on women’s health to “FOAD for using vaginas as a political ploy” too.
amused
@MattR: Look, kid, you want to mewl about how Obama has betrayed you lately, go for it. Trying to borrow fury over the war on women to get someone to notice your boring mewling is using vaginas as a political ploy. Pointing out a stupid hypothetical is stupid. Using ladybits to drum up support is FOAD territory, so, FOAD, MFer.
MattR
@amused: Can you please provide me with a list of topics that I can acceptably use to make an analogy? Am I allowed to talk about the compromise that created DADT and the fact that the Clinton and Bush administrations interpreted that differently or would that just be using gays as a political ploy?
Other than that, I really don’t know how to respond to all the incorrect inferences in your comment. You seem unable to differentiate between criticizing people who blindly support Obama with criticism of Obama himself. Would I have preferred the NDAA did not contain this provision? Yes. Would I have preferred that Obama did not sign it? Yes. Do I understand and accept why Obama chose to sign it? Yes. Does that mean that the rules he just passed undo the fact that it is still the law of the land? Absolutely not.
(EDIT: I really have to wonder if I would have gottenthe same reaction had I used McConnell as part of an analogy supporting the president and bashing the Republicans. I am gonna have to guess that using ladybits as a political ploy would have been OK in that situation)
fasteddie9318
@MattR: zOMG BOTH SIDES DO IT! HYPOCRITE ALERT! HYPOCRITE ALERT!
chopper
@MattR:
the bill passed both houses with a veto-proof majority. a signing statement was really all that could have happened here, along with rule changes after the fact. both of which obama did. yes, a future president could change those rules but that’s the way our government works.
MattR
@fasteddie9318: Huh?
@chopper: Yes and he could have vetoed it to signal his disapproval. But really, all I was trying to saw was that regardless of how you feel about that decision, fixing the rules of implementation does not undo signing the law.
Mjaum
It continues to amaze me that the nation that experienced the Dust Bowl (no, it’s not about baseball…) has a problem with agreeing that humans can catastrophically f*ck up their environment.
Steve
@MattR: It was the worst analogy of the week. The indefinite detention provision was a tiny part of a colossal defense appropriations bill, which Obama would have had to veto in its entirety. The abortion bill in Virginia is just an abortion bill.
chopper
@MattR:
and it would have been back on his desk within a day with an even bigger majority, and he would have had to do the same signing statement and rule change thing he did here, only with a loss of support with congressional democrats over such a stupid fucking stunt.
unless it’s a hill you want to die on, vetoing a bill passed with a veto-proof majority is generally a stupid fucking move.
all in all you’re getting pissed over nothing.
amused
@Steve: But then Matt wouldn’t have been able to mansplain to an Obot! How dare you take that away from him. No doubt he’s been saving his “analogy” for a while now, poor li’l thing.
fasteddie9318
@MattR:
EVERYBODY IS BACKING THEIR OWN TEAM! NO CONSISTENCY! HYPOCRITES EVERYWHERE! SOMEBODY TURN ON THE GLENNSIGNAL!
chopper
LOUD NOISES!
MattR
@chopper: And you are focusing on something that is not my main point. Maybe it will help if I rephrase it a bit.
Regardless of how you feel about Obama’s initial decision to sign the bill, fixing the rules of implementation (which is a very good thing) does not undo the fact that the law is still on the books.
chopper
@MattR:
and it does not undo the fact that the law was going to be on the books despite any fee-fees the president had over it. that’s what a veto-proof majority means in this country.
you’re pointing out that the law is still on the books. we all know this. this isn’t news. if you think the law shouldn’t be on the books blame the congress that overwhelmingly voted to pass it.
chopper
damn double post.
eemom
@MattR:
Dude, you mean McDonnell. McConnell is the chinless, jowlfull Senate Minority Leader. We got enough fucktwats running this state already, don’t palm HIM off on us too.
gaz
http://crooksandliars.com/tina-dupuy/gop-2012-pro-fiction-campaign
Cheers to Tina Dupuy. C&L is far from my favorite blog, but this post knocks it out of the park.
Amen.