Via press release from:
Senators to Vote on Whether to Cede Congressional Authority to the EPA
Washington, D.C. – Senators will soon consider a resolution to pare back an Environmental Protection Agency plan to regulate greenhouse gases – a plan that would raise energy costs.
On June 10, the U.S. Senate will consider a “resolution of disapproval” regarding a 2009 ruling made by the EPA in late 2009 claiming six greenhouse gases are a threat to public health. This makes these gases — carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride — subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.
“The EPA’s endangerment finding endangers our economy and our liberty,” said Deneen Borelli, full-time fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network. “The EPA’s effort to regulate greenhouse gases will affect virtually every aspect of our economy and our lives. In expert opinion, this will result in higher energy costs and job losses while having — by their own admission — virtually no effect on cooling global climate.”
Senate Joint Resolution 26, introduced by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), would use the Congressional Review Act to overturn the administrative ruling. This would allow elected representatives to deliberate and pass their own regulations as Congress sees fit.
“I don’t want an unelected bureaucrat imposing rules and regulations on businesses that are essentially a tax on energy and will be passed along to consumers — many of whom are just getting by as it is,” said Tom Borelli, director of the Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research.
“Opposition to the cap-and-trade bill that was jammed through the House of Representatives is one of the key positions of the tea parties, and this endangerment finding is cap-and-trade by other means,” noted Deneen Borelli. “Americans are already skeptical enough of lawmakers these days. Watching them pass up an opportunity to do what they were sent to Washington for will restore no lost faith in the government.”
“This resolution is a major indicator of where our republic is headed. Senators will determine if they are going to cede their authority as an elected representative of the people to largely unaccountable bureaucrats,” added Tom Borelli. “While the White House is eager for the EPA to seize regulatory authority, rank-and-file Americans such as those found in the tea party movement are troubled and will be watching to see who will be for and who will be against this massive federal power grab.”
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-profit, free-market think-tank established in 1982 and funded primarily by the gifts of over 100,000 recent individual contributors. Less than one percent of funding is received from corporations.
One can read about the legislative authority which allows Congress to over-rule a regulation here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blcra.htm. Notably, this law was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.
With regards to the regulatory state, the development of regulations is controlled by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act). This allows the administrative agency to implement statutes. There is a very large body of law which has defined the boundaries between the Executive branch (e.g. the Agency) and the legislative branch. The standard for overturning a regulation is “”arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” In short, recent decisions in the Supreme Court, (most importantly Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) opinion by Stevens) have limited the courts power to overturn rules made by Agencies. In Chevron, the Court found that as long as the Agency’s interpretation of the statute was reasonable, it would not be overturned by the courts.
In the present case, where Congress asserts what the meaning of the law is, in this case stating that CO2 was not intended to be included, I would expect that to preclude any further action by the EPA, absent a grant of authority by Congress. Of course, Obama does have to sign the law however it does place all the Congress-critters on record (and Obama as if more is needed in this regard). It only needs to pass by a simple majority.
The law has been rarely used (once in fact) and has not been challenged in court. (see: http://www.law.upenn.edu/blogs/regblog/2010/02/can-the-congressional-review-act-block-climate-change-regulation.html)
Elections have consequences, those who oppose the current policies will have an opportunity to be heard in November.
The EPA clearly went into territory that needs to be covered by legislation with the endangerment finding. They were the emergency plan in case the cap n trade didn’t work, but also a toe in the water to see how far that they could go.
Why would big oil support groups and agenda items that seem to hurt them? As you guys said above, regulation eliminated competition and guarantees cartel exclusivity to the few large players.
The environmentalist end also creates perceived scarcity like peak oil propaganda, and putting large formations off limits via monuments and wildlife areas, driving prices up. They also get to offer a little guidance on the legislation to avoid the really painful stuff and build in some loopholes.
It makes a lot of sense for the big oil cos to be at the table, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they are secretly funding some green and peak oil groups. It is just a cost of doing business while maintaining a monopoly.
“While the White House is eager for the EPA to seize regulatory authority, rank-and-file Americans such as those found in the tea party movement are troubled and will be watching to see who will be for and who will be against this massive federal power grab.”
Oh yes we will. And many senators are going to be looking for work.
The reduction on oil is too tiny to improve energy security – the US could just burn more coal and gas for that. It is pretty much guaranteed to increase the demand for rare earth metals – which are used in weapon systems and China have a pretty good stranglehold on. Instead of making the US secure this will make them dependant on the Middle east AND China. The people pushing this stuff are too ideological to have a level-headed understanding of the implications. I don’t get those knocking american democracy – a year or so after pushing this stuff america is pushing back. The EU has been forcing this stuff through for over a decade with no government representatives making as much as a whimper. It is pretty obvious which side of the atlantic has the healthier democracy.
RayB says:
June 7, 2010 at 11:00 pm
The EPA clearly went into territory that needs to be covered by legislation with the endangerment finding. They were the emergency plan in case the cap n trade didn’t work, but also a toe in the water to see how far that they could go.
[–snip–]
It makes a lot of sense for the big oil cos to be at the table, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they are secretly funding some green and peak oil groups. It is just a cost of doing business while maintaining a monopoly.
You’ve put your finger on the magic button: Multinational/Transnational oil has indeed been behind a lot of the propaganda since almost from the beginning.
As you point out above: The whole theme was/is to create an artifice, an illusion of dwindling oil when in fact it has been known since at least the 1970’s (possibly even earlier) that mineral crude is in fact part of a constant geological process.
The said oil companies secretly met with their supposed enemies, the greens, and concocted the scheme which effectively kept the number of refineries static. Any student of history can clearly see that when the oil companies pretended to attempt to get another one online, the greens threw a convenient hissy fit.
The oil companies made only the feeblest attempt to counter the greens and then shut up. The charade was bought, hook, line, and sinker by the rest of world.
Now that that cat is out of the bag, the only way to continue milking the rest of us is to create yet another artifice and that’s the ‘carbon’ scheme.
The whole thought there is to create artificial shortages by dint of reduced production, which in turn will raise the prices of the commodity, and that’s not even talking about the taxes which will be levied.
This isn’t to say that the ground-level greens know what’s going on. Rather, what’s happened in the past and currently is that the top leadership uses the following as useful idiots: They are kept effectively ignorant of the truth.
Anyone who knows anything about religion knows that new converts are the most ardent and vociferous followers, and are loath to question anything they’ve been taught. For them, pablum is the order of the day. As much is evidenced by their writings and threats to anyone who questions their ideology.
Bit of devil’s advocacy here;
Most law bodies are divided into the Executive the Legislature and the Judiciary. The worry is at the overlap of responsibilities, in this case the EPA [executive] taking over law making from the legislature. But is this really the case? Very often the legislature delegate authority to the executive to make or change laws. In the UK for instance most of our law is delegated. So something like the Road Traffic Act says very little of use but details of speeds, vehicle design etc., are in the delegated regulations. In some instances these regulations contain schedules e.g. of substances, levels or amounts, which can be added to or altered by the executive. Could this be the case here? The EPA isn’t making a law, it’s just doing things legally within the delegated framework it’s been given. For instance if some science papers had said chromium was more dangerous that previously though would we amazed if OSHA [HSE in UK] changed the levels of exposure in some worker protection code. that wouldn’t go back to Senate? Same thing with EPA really except the implications of CO2 reductions are a little more taxing.
Any US lawyers out there?
cheers David
Ed_B says:
June 7, 2010 at 11:15 am
Trevor, could you explain the following to me? I can’t figure why big oil likes cap and trade so much:
“As for the idea that cap and tax is the best way to punish BP and Big Oil, it’d be more convincing if Kerry-Lieberman hadn’t been written in concert with ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell and-bad-timing department-BP. “Ironically, we’ve been working very closely with some of these oil companies in the last months,” Mr. Kerry said in early May.
The Senator from Nantucket added that “they’ve acted in good faith and they’ve worked hard with us to try to find a way to get us to a solution that meets all of our needs.” Lobbyists for the three oil majors were regular visitors to Mr. Kerry’s closed-door negotiations”
________________________________________________________________________
Look back to the first UN Earth Summit where Maurice Strong paid the way for Greenpeace and started the AGW ball rolling. Strong is a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation who helps fund Greenpeace and WWF. Strong is a senior advisor to the World Bank and started his career in oil with the Rockefeller’s Saudi Arabian oil company in the 1950’s.
I suggest you look into the big oil, World Bank, Maurice Strong, and David Rockefeller connections. CAGW is a money/power grabbing move and nothing more.
text
“The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions….”
As I said it is all about power and control. Check out the IMF/World Bank SAPs
Enneagram says:
June 7, 2010 at 11:31 am
Since when, non elected individuals, like those EPA, have the right to govern upon people? In any case they could only advice and recommend but never enforce.
________________________________________________________________________
You have not had any run ins with the USDA have you? The idea is to grab the power, then enforce it on the little guy who does not have the money or power to defend himself.
Checkout John Munsell’s story
What law? The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is creating a new regulatory system for meat and poultry safety… HACCP is widely recognized by scientific authorities and international organizations..
Where it actually came from: The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials…. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.
Our laws all over the world are now written by unelected international organizations and then rubber stamped by bought and paid for politicians.
Monday, 30 April 2007: “In a sweeping move that has garnered surprisingly little attention this week the United States and the European Union have signed up to a new transatlantic economic partnership that will see regulatory standards “harmonized” and will lay the basis for a merging of the US and EU into one single market, a huge step on the path to a new globalized world order.” The BBC reported from the Summit in Washington on Monday: http://stopspp.com/stopspp/?p=122
wws says:
June 7, 2010 at 12:14 pm
“Jason and all the others who are wondering why Big Oil would support Cap and Trade: You have no idea how much competition the independents and small companies provide here in the US….
When you see that it really is a “Wipe out everyone except a handful of Really Big Companies Bill” then you will see what the stakes really are, and why they are playing along.”
__________________________________________________________________________
Yes, Yes, that is exactly it. It is identical to what the WTO and HACCP regs did to the small meat packers. In ten years it wiped them completely off the board. We are now down to four or five internationals and a few in-state only meat packers. The next battle is the farmers themselves. We have been fighting since 2005 (food safety bill) and National Animal Identification System and we are loosing.
– January 2005: WTO/UN Guide to Good Farming Practices: This draft guide to good farming practices for animal production food safety was taken from the Report of the Meeting of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission (Paris, 17-28 January 2005) http://www.oie.int/boutique/extrait/25berlingueri823836_0.pdf?PHPSESSID=64969a28688594daf57a7263f42fb1ce
Don’t forget the Corporate/Government Revolving Door: http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Revolving-Door.htm
“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people; control money and you control the world.” ~ Henry Kissinger 1970
Government by regulation. Just like in Europe. This reminds me of the movie The Best Little Horehouse in Texas where Charles Durning, the Texas Governor demonstrates how to avoid blame by singing and dancing the Sidestep.
In baseball it’s Three Strikes and you’re out!
In politics, the rule should be Two Strikes and you’re out!
No one, I say again, NO ONE should be elected to the same job more than twice.
We don’t need an amendment to the Constitution. It’s very, very simple! Just DON’T Vote for anyone for more than two terms in the same position.
City Council or School Board or Mayor or etc. – TWO TERMS
County Commissioner or Sherif or etc. – TWO TERMS
State Rep or Senator or Sec of State or Governor, etc. – TWO TERMS
US House Rep or Senator or President, etc. – TWO TERMS
It’s an UP or OUT System, do well and move UP or you’re back on the street with the rest of us beggars.
PS: First we clean up Congress, then we do away with the EPA ! What’s a few more unemployed these days?
It’s amazing how many commentors on this blog (not to mention the author of that press release) don’t understand how the U.S. government works.
David Segesta spoke for many when he said, “If the EPA is creating rules which carry the force of law without an act of congress it’s unconstitutional.”
That act of congress is called the Clean Air Act. Established by a Republican president (Nixon) and substantially strengthened by another Republican president (Bush), the CAA authorizes and requires the EPA to regulate air pollution.
Henry chance says, “The other way to remove power they grab is in court.”
This has already been decided in court. Far from being a power grab, in 2003, EPA decided not to regulate greenhouse gases, until they were required to do so by the Supreme Court in 2007.
Let me sum up: EPA is regulating greenhouse gases because it is required to do so by Congress and the Supreme Court.
tallbloke says:
June 7, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Jim G says:
June 7, 2010 at 11:11 am
we would eliminate a great many of the left wing voters reading propaganda from the press as we know that many cannot read. Anyone have any other ideas on how to fix this problem?
Better education?
Eliminate an equal number of right wing voters?
________________________________________________________________________
How about make the right wing AND the left wing realize this is a “you and he fight” type of situation while the multi-billionaires walk off with more of the poor and middle class wealth and increase their power. Every bill passed into law, every increase in the US bureaucracy put more money into the bankers pockets.
Grace Commission Report January 12, 1984
“…..If fundamental changes are not made in Federal spending, as compared with the fiscal 1983 deficit of $195 billion, a deficit of over ten times that amount, $2 trillion, is projected for the year 2000, only 17 years from now. In that year, the Federal debt would be $13.0 trillion ($160,000 per current taxpayer) and the interest alone on the debt would be $1.5 trillion per year ($18,500 per year per current taxpayer)….
…100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.“
And do not let the rhetoric fool you, The Federal Reserve Is A PRIVATELY OWNED Corporation Although it is set up as a cross between a Corporation and a federal agency as a sop to the public, Congress lost all control several decades ago.
A must read for everyone is “A Primer on Money”, printed for the House Banking and. Currency Committee, 1964, 88th Congress, 2nd Session This pamphlet outlines exactly how control of the banking industry was wrest away from the US government.
RayB says:
June 7, 2010 at 11:00 pm
…..It makes a lot of sense for the big oil cos to be at the table, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they are secretly funding some green and peak oil groups. It is just a cost of doing business while maintaining a monopoly.
_________________________________________________________________________
David Rockefeller and Maurice Strong, two big guns in oil and banking, have been the prime movers in CAGW from the start (UN first earth summit – 1972) The Rockefeller Foundations have been funding GreenPeace and WWF with Standard Oil money for years!
Rockefeller and Strong are members of the Club of Rome:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” — in The First Global Revolution, pp.104-105 by Alexander King, founder of the Club of Rome and Bertrand Schneider, secretary of the Club of Rome
Knowing the background behind CAGW is as important as knowing the science.
Larry says:
June 8, 2010 at 2:50 am
“…. The people pushing this stuff are too ideological to have a level-headed understanding of the implications….”
__________________________________________________________________
Larry, Al Gore’s good buddy Maurice Strong, father of Global Warming is sitting in Beijing China where he is welcomed with open arms. Of course they know where this is going. The complete destruction of the USA and Europe as world powers and that is exactly what they want.
“You Americans are so gullible! We don’t have to invade you! We will destroy you from within without firing a shot! We will bury you by the billions! We spoon feed you socialism until your Communists and don’t even know it! We assist your elected leaders in giving you small doses of Socialism until you suddenly awake to find you have Communism. the day will come when your grandchildren will live under communism!” 1956 –Nikita Kruschev to the USA at the UN
“What unites the many different forms of Socialism.. is the conception that socialism (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) must be handed down to the grateful masses in one form or another, by a ruling elite which is not subject to their control…” http://search.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/0-2souls.htm
The ‘Innocents’ Clubs’: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/munzen.html
“…During the 1920’s and most of the 1930’s Münzenberg played a leading role in the Comintern, Lenin’s front for world-wide co-ordination of the left under Russian control. Under Münzenberg’s direction, hundreds of groups, committees and publications cynically used and manipulated the devout radicals of the West….Most of this army of workers in what Münzenberg called ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ had no idea they were working for Stalin. They were led to believe that they were advancing the cause of a sort of socialist humanism. The descendents of the ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ are still hard at work in our universities and colleges. Every year a new cohort of impressionable students join groups like the Anti-Nazi League believing them to be benign opponents of oppression…”
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” – Pg. 405 of David Rockefeller’s Autobiography, 2002
Unfortunately it is not some nutters “Conspiracy Theory” it is very very real. I just hope we are not too late to stop it. Because all those activists are going to find out the same thing the peasants found out after the Soviet Union was formed…. The elite do not see the “serfs” as human and consider them completely expendable.
Check out Who gave the USA the Federal Reserve, while his brother funded the bolshevik revolution. I will give you a hint google Warburg
Don’t confuse conservative with republican or “right wing”. Many of the GOP have signed on to the “bribe the people with their own money” program. The biggest mistake made by many conservatives is to belive that free enterprise without INTELLIGENT regulation will not revert to robber barons and child labor. Just look at the financial industry situation today. It was, indeed, started by the Community Reinvestment act but the big financials jumped on the band wagon once the government set it up so they could sell their bad loans. Everyone in the industry and in government had their hands in each others’ pockets and the money came from the vast unwashed masses. Again, the only solution is to take the money out of the system. We could start by not allowing the elected officials to take their campaign funds home with them when they leave or get thrown out.
Anonymous Howard says:
June 8, 2010 at 6:52 am
“It’s amazing how many commentors on this blog (not to mention the author of that press release) don’t understand how the U.S. government works.
David Segesta spoke for many when he said, “If the EPA is creating rules which carry the force of law without an act of congress it’s unconstitutional.”
That act of congress is called the Clean Air Act. Established by a Republican president (Nixon) and substantially strengthened by another Republican president (Bush), the CAA authorizes and requires the EPA to regulate air pollution.
Henry chance says, “The other way to remove power they grab is in court.”
This has already been decided in court. Far from being a power grab, in 2003, EPA decided not to regulate greenhouse gases, until they were required to do so by the Supreme Court in 2007.
Let me sum up: EPA is regulating greenhouse gases because it is required to do so by Congress and the Supreme Court.”
You are correct. The only conceivable method to successfully thwart the EPA’s “cap and trade by other means” would be an amendment to the authorizing legislation. And, in reality, what would likely be required is complete “repeal and replace” of virtually the entire federal code of environmental law. Given the ongoing debacle in the Gulf, the flood of demagoguery that would accompany the mere suggestion of even the most limited of these options means that even if we could replace, with a magical snap of our fingers, the entire elected class across all levels of government with a coterie of strict constitutionalists and hardcore libertarians, it would still be virtually impossible to generate the political will to do what is required. We are so screwed.
BTW, I came across this rather compelling distillation of the Impediment of the United States
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5B0Uauh-3Pc/TApgEE-IA2I/AAAAAAAABLY/aVt_Ri4-cQM/s1600/PostTurtle.jpg
For those who’ve never lived in places where turtles are a regular feature of the environment and may have trouble with the allusion, a “post turtle” is usually a result of an act of juvenile indifferent cruelty, not some reptilian extension of PNS.
I believe that the EPA claimed that regulating GHGs was not in their jurisdiction under the meaning of their enabling legislation. The SC said it was (by 5-4). But that didn’t require the EPA to regulate them. It only required the EPA to determine whether or not GHGs were dangerous, and if so, at what level. The EPA could (and would, under Bush) have decided that they weren’t dangerous.
Gail Combs says:
Better education?
Eliminate an equal number of right wing voters?
By the way, I graduated from Case Institute of Technology when it was ranked #2 in engineering schools in the US, required top grades and board scores to even enter and still more than half of those with whom I entered did not graduate. After it was made a “better education” situation by the liberal ideology by combining it with Western Reserve College, the school of science and engineering has never recovered and was ranked 67th the last time I saw such a ranking. Of course, just like with science today, one must consider the new ranking criteria which include all sorts of liberal nonsense. But the real truth is that now that anyone can get in and anyone can graduate the rigorous education it once offered is gone and whatever its rank it is no longer considered a test of intelligence and/or hard work to obtain a degree from that institution. Unfortunately, the left wing has control of most schools of higher education and has dumbed them down considerably so that anyone can now obtain a degree in any subject from BS to PHD to MD without being very intelligent or working very hard. All it takes is time and money.
Unless the House (over Pelosi’s dead body) takes up the Senate resolution and also passes it, the whole thing is just political theater.
Anonymous Howard says:
June 8, 2010 at 6:52 am
It’s amazing how many commentors on this blog (not to mention the author of that press release) don’t understand how the U.S. government works.
I shall proceed to demonstrate that it is all the more yourself whom is the one with the misunderstanding.
David Segesta spoke for many when he said, “If the EPA is creating rules which carry the force of law without an act of congress it’s unconstitutional.”[–snip–]
If the extent of the law –as it is– does NOT allow the EPA to randomly and callously declare contention for which there is no science to support it, then the act of the agency is indeed beyond the pale of the unconstitutional.
Henry chance says, “The other way to remove power they grab is in court.”
This has already been decided in court. Far from being a power grab, in 2003, EPA decided not to regulate greenhouse gases, until they were required to do so by the Supreme Court in 2007.
You are MOST incorrect! The court did NOT require anything. Rather, what it did rule was that the agency was well within its bounds to regulate what it had decided was a ‘pollutant.’
Let me sum up: EPA is regulating greenhouse gases because it is required to do so by Congress and the Supreme Court.
Let’s REALLY sum up: You know less about the subject than you pretend.
Jim G says:
June 8, 2010 at 8:36 am
Don’t confuse conservative with republican or “right wing”. Many of the GOP have signed on to the “bribe the people with their own money” program. The biggest mistake made by many conservatives is to belive that free enterprise without INTELLIGENT regulation will not revert to robber barons and child labor. Just look at the financial industry situation today. It was, indeed, started by the Community Reinvestment act but the big financials jumped on the band wagon once the government set it up so they could sell their bad loans. Everyone in the industry and in government had their hands in each others’ pockets and the money came from the vast unwashed masses. Again, the only solution is to take the money out of the system. We could start by not allowing the elected officials to take their campaign funds home with them when they leave or get thrown out.
I’ve a better set of ideas:
[1] Disallow –by law– any involvement in either the making of a law, or the voting on whatever issue for which funds were accepted by an interest directly affected by the legislation.
[2] Lacking [1] above, then a constitutional amendment which removes all power from the Congress to either raise or spend monies without a direct vote of the people, requiring BOTH an 80% show AND VOTE by all registered voters. If 80% show, but only 79% vote in the affirmative, the measure fails.
[3] All taxes shall be directly billed to the people themselves instead of being automatically deducted from salaries. When everyone gets that bill in the mail, hell and high water are surely to happen!
My2Cents says:
June 8, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Unless the House (over Pelosi’s dead body) takes up the Senate resolution and also passes it, the whole thing is just political theater.
WHAT?!?! Do you mean to say that she’s not already dead? Could’ve fooled me!!
Must be all that botox …
@rogerkni: “[The Supreme Court] only required the EPA to determine whether or not GHGs were dangerous, and if so, at what level.”
Correct. I was simplifying (oversimplifying?). I would contend that the endangerment finding was inevitable (even under Bush or another Republican president), but that would be speculation and probably not worth arguing over. Thanks for the clarification.
June 10, 11:30 EDT 6 hours of debate begins on the Disapproval Resolution
On Cspan 2