rushmc 23 #1 June 29, 2015 Bout time"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #3 June 29, 2015 http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/scotus-rejects-epa-emissions/2015/06/29/id/652655/"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #4 June 30, 2015 rushmchttp://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/scotus-rejects-epa-emissions/2015/06/29/id/652655/ COOL.. more cancer and brain damage for everyone downwind from those plants... woo hoo... Cull the poor....... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #5 June 30, 2015 rushmcBout time Yep. Good. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreeece 2 #6 June 30, 2015 Amazon***http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/scotus-rejects-epa-emissions/2015/06/29/id/652655/ COOL.. more cancer and brain damage for everyone downwind from those plants... woo hoo... Cull the poor....... ...and Obama care may or may not cover it...but we're not sure....just don't be surprised if you get an outrageous bill...if so, you can talk to our finance department.... .....seriously, that's what the radiation oncologist said to us yesterday...Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #7 June 30, 2015 Amazon ***http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/scotus-rejects-epa-emissions/2015/06/29/id/652655/ COOL.. more cancer and brain damage for everyone downwind from those plants... woo hoo... Cull the poor....... Poverty kills more kids than brain cancer from these plants. Every time the EPA enacts a new rule, more kids go into poverty. Think of the children."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreeece 2 #8 June 30, 2015 jgoose71 ******http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/scotus-rejects-epa-emissions/2015/06/29/id/652655/ COOL.. more cancer and brain damage for everyone downwind from those plants... woo hoo... Cull the poor....... Poverty kills more kids than brain cancer from these plants. Every time the EPA enacts a new rule, more kids go into poverty. Think of the children.The GOP wants to invest money into the top 5 leading causes of death...Cancer is now #1. As far as I know, the "best" treatment we have for brain cancer outside clinical trials, is radiation and Temodar...this was from 2005....we need to do better.Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #9 June 30, 2015 jgoose71 ******http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/scotus-rejects-epa-emissions/2015/06/29/id/652655/ COOL.. more cancer and brain damage for everyone downwind from those plants... woo hoo... Cull the poor....... Poverty kills more kids than brain cancer from these plants. Every time the EPA enacts a new rule, more kids go into poverty. Think of the children.Gee in the other thread it was stated by a conservative that poor children did not die because they were poor.... Can ya''ll get a consensus and stay on message??? Mercury is some evil deadly poison stuff.... long term effects.... it affects the brain directly. from Wiki Toxic effects include damage to the brain, kidneys and lungs. Mercury poisoning can result in several diseases, including acrodynia (pink disease), Hunter-Russell syndrome, and Minamata disease. Perhaps the solution is to require those who benefit financially from the companies that pollute to only be able to live in the area just downwind from the source that is polluting the environment and from which they are receiving the profits . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 380 #10 June 30, 2015 The decision was a technical one about the point in the regulatory process where the EPA has to do a cost/benefit analysis to decide if a pollutant should be regulated. The EPA determined that mercury is a toxic pollutant and therefor should be regulated. In fact, they were directed by Congress in 1990 to regulate mercury. Later, when deciding the level to which mercury release that would be regulated, they did a cost/benefit analysis, taking into account the cost of available technology to remove mercury (and arsenic) from the exhaust from power plants, to decide what level of mercury release to permit. The SC decided the EPA should have done the cost/benefit analysis first, before deciding to regulate. Again we have a decision that turns on interpretation of a phrase: the law ordering the EPA to regulate mercury emissions from power plants says the EPA should impose regulations that are "appropriate and necessary". The EPA is not required to do cost/benefit analysis for mercury emissions from other sources, and in fact the courts have (in previous cases) decided that the EPA cannot use cost/benefit analysis in making decisions, they can use only data on health effects to set permissible release levels. However, power plants are covered under a separate bill, and that bill (and only that bill) has the "appropriate and necessary" language, and the SC decided that "appropriate" implies a cost/benefit analysis. The decision did not strike down the regulations, but the EPA must now (in a lower court) present a cost/benefit analysis to justify the imposition of regulations. That should not be a problem, as that analysis has been done and the EPA concluded that there would be $9 of benefit for every $1 of expense. However you can expect the industry to fight that estimate as a lot of the benefits are not easily quantified: what is a 5-point reduction in IQ in 1,000,000 people worth, for example? How do you put a number on that? In the meantime the regulations stand, and the point is largely moot anyway as the power plant industry has already spent most of the money that will be required to install scrubbers to remove the mercury. The decision will not result in an immediate increase in mercury and arsenic emissions. However it will affect future regulations, as industry will now be able to use the courts to contest cost/benefit analyses before a decision to regulate pollutants can be made, delaying the decision-making process and implementation for years or decades. Consider that Congress ordered the EPA to regulate mercury from power plants in 1990, regulatory rules were not announced until three years ago, and the industry is still fighting those regulations. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zep 0 #11 June 30, 2015 Cull the poor. Yep good, bout time, the poor have nutink to offer society, cull them slowly so's they suffer. The big corporations know what they're doing so we must obey them. Don't you know life would be so much better as a corporation slave than a free thinking poor. Gone fishing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #12 June 30, 2015 Zep Cull the poor. Yep good, bout time, the poor have nutink to offer society, cull them slowly so's they suffer. The big corporations know what they're doing so we must obey them. Don't you know life would be so much better as a corporation slave than a free thinking poor. But poisoning them makes them no good as fertilizer.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #13 June 30, 2015 Zep Cull the poor. Yep good, bout time, the poor have nutink to offer society, cull them slowly so's they suffer. The big corporations know what they're doing so we must obey them. Don't you know life would be so much better as a corporation slave than a free thinking poor. With the heavy metals poisoning......the down winders/ the poor will have less and less brainpower to be thinking..... so it's all good... Certainly explains those who watch FAUX news and vote against their own best interests..... to support their Oligarchs who live far far away from the pollution they have created. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #14 June 30, 2015 kallend *** Cull the poor. Yep good, bout time, the poor have nutink to offer society, cull them slowly so's they suffer. The big corporations know what they're doing so we must obey them. Don't you know life would be so much better as a corporation slave than a free thinking poor. But poisoning them makes them no good as fertilizer. who is poisoning them?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zep 0 #15 June 30, 2015 rushmc ****** Cull the poor. Yep good, bout time, the poor have nutink to offer society, cull them slowly so's they suffer. The big corporations know what they're doing so we must obey them. Don't you know life would be so much better as a corporation slave than a free thinking poor. But poisoning them makes them no good as fertilizer. who is poisoning them? Who's poisoning them. Come on all together now MONSANTO RIO TINTO WILLIAMS ENERGY NORTHROP DOW CHEMICAL I could go on but it gets boring. Gone fishing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RMK 3 #16 June 30, 2015 rushmchttp://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/scotus-rejects-epa-emissions/2015/06/29/id/652655/ Great news source; I see they are proponents of Donald Trump. From the quality of your posts, I think we already see results of mercury levels in the water."Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #17 June 30, 2015 RMK***http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/scotus-rejects-epa-emissions/2015/06/29/id/652655/ Great news source; I see they are proponents of Donald Trump. From the quality of your posts, I think we already see results of mercury levels in the water. OOooooo Nice PA BTW The company I work for has already met all MATS requirements Carry on"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 380 #18 June 30, 2015 Out of curiosity (perhaps morbid curiosity) who do you think should have the responsibility to regulate release of pollutants into the environment, since you seem to hate the EPA so much? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 380 #19 June 30, 2015 1969912***Bout time Yep. Good.What do you mean by "good"? Do you think unregulated dumping of mercury and arsenic into the air is "good"? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #20 June 30, 2015 Amazon***http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/scotus-rejects-epa-emissions/2015/06/29/id/652655/ COOL.. more cancer and brain damage for everyone downwind from those plants... woo hoo... Cull the poor....... The SCOTUS found that the EPA process was not according to the law. Of course, what the SCOTUS did was kinda like what it did with Obamacare. The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act have lots of provisions requiring that the EPA include an economic analysis in determining whether regulation of a substance is "appropriate and necessary." Incidentally, the section relating to Mercury didn't have this specific requirement. So the SCOTUS decided that even though the statute didn't say it, it should have said it. For an idea of the utter intellectual corruption, Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotmayor didn't agree. Just days after approving of it with Obamacare. Whilst Alito, Scalia and Thomas thought it was fine. Just days after disapproving with Obamacare. Though they could say the went with recent precedent. Roberts and Kennedy were at least consistent. It's like each side is saying "how bout them apples" to each other. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #21 June 30, 2015 GeorgiaDon******Bout time Yep. Good.What do you mean by "good"? Do you think unregulated dumping of mercury and arsenic into the air is "good"? Don Regulation and political agendas are two different things Want another example? Look at the waters of the US regulations set for Aug 1 Another abuse of power It is agenda Not science that drives them"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #22 June 30, 2015 GeorgiaDonOut of curiosity (perhaps morbid curiosity) who do you think should have the responsibility to regulate release of pollutants into the environment, since you seem to hate the EPA so much? No-one needs to. The free market makes it counterproductive for industry to poison its customers. Because capitalism. Somehow.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #23 June 30, 2015 lawrocket******http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/scotus-rejects-epa-emissions/2015/06/29/id/652655/ COOL.. more cancer and brain damage for everyone downwind from those plants... woo hoo... Cull the poor....... The SCOTUS found that the EPA process was not according to the law. Of course, what the SCOTUS did was kinda like what it did with Obamacare. The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act have lots of provisions requiring that the EPA include an economic analysis in determining whether regulation of a substance is "appropriate and necessary." Incidentally, the section relating to Mercury didn't have this specific requirement. So the SCOTUS decided that even though the statute didn't say it, it should have said it. For an idea of the utter intellectual corruption, Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotmayor didn't agree. Just days after approving of it with Obamacare. Whilst Alito, Scalia and Thomas thought it was fine. Just days after disapproving with Obamacare. Though they could say the went with recent precedent. Roberts and Kennedy were at least consistent. It's like each side is saying "how bout them apples" to each other. Don't you find it disturbing that the interpretation of the Constitution depends only on the vagaries of 9 politically appointed judges?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,275 #24 June 30, 2015 QuoteDon't you find it disturbing that the interpretation of the Constitution depends only on the vagaries of 9 politically appointed judges? Who would you have interpret it? The Constitution itself created the Supreme Court and gave it this job. It also regulates the process of amending itself. If you respect the Constitution you must respect the power of this co-equal branch of government. Sheesh, I'm Canadian and even I know that.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #25 July 1, 2015 kallend Don't you find it disturbing that the interpretation of the Constitution depends only on the vagaries of 9 politically appointed judges? Not really. The lifetime appointment means that they are in there for a while. The vetting process makes sure that, even though political ideologies are present, those judges are usually pretty smart. The confirmation process keeps the real 'extremists' out. The way the political winds blow back and forth in this country, it's pretty rare to see one side of the spectrum be able to fill the court entirely. The judges know this and will often time their retirement to ensure that their successor will be of similar thinking. FDR tried this when he wanted to expand the court so that he could appoint enough justices of his liking so he could push his New Deal proposals through. This didn't go over very well. However, by 1942, he had appointed 7 of 9 on the court, so his ideologies were well supported. That's one of the reasons for a two term limit for the pres. And last, the SC usually gets it right. There have been a few "clunkers" over the years, Dred Scott & Plessy v Ferguson are two. But those are pretty rare."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
