Federalist Biden brings back Sue and Settle, less the transparency
Again, judges just love it when politicians seek to evade their rulings with clever dodges.
When hammer comes down on EPA and Dept of Interior, no whining allowed.
Well, that didn’t take long
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Likewise don’t come crying to us when your favorite fishing spots no longer support wildlife.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Actually that is well on its way.
The Northwest River Watershed is rapidly being destroyed by the wood pellet industry that exists to support Britain’s renewable energy scheme.
LikeLike
Serious question. I know many fisherman, hunters, etc. consider themselves conservationists. I know you fish, I know you favor gutting the EPA and the rest of the regulatory state. Do you think there will be more nature conservation without an EPA or federal protections?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Actually I was in the movement that got the Clean Water Act passed.
What I favor is returning the focus of the EPA to its original purpose, preventing real pollution. It has lost sight of that.
LikeLike
If you want your local river and air to be clean, can’t you simply choose not to do business with the industries that are polluting them?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t do business with the British carbon trading scheme, but they are still deforesting the NWR watershed.
LikeLike
Political hack writer. Period.
LikeLike
That’s pretty weak even for Ad hominem
LikeLike
I read the piece. I also looked to see who the author was.
I stand by my assertion that he is a political hack writer who believes the sun rises and sets in a large pair of tennis shorts in Mar-a-Lago.
Next time I post something that is attacked based on source, I fully expect equal treatment of the attacker. My post from Politico and Mr. Smith’s attack comes to mind.
And if you DON’T say anything to him, in the manner you did here to me, you further prove EVERY SINGLE TIME I have referred to you as a hypocrite.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Boo Hoo.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Where is the article in error?
LikeLike
Where is the article in error?
Did I say it was?
I hope it was absolutely correct. I would like to think that Democrats will use every legal measure to achieve our goal of protecting the environment.
I was noting your hypocritical whining. Boo Hoo.
LikeLike
I believe the go to phrase you are looking for is “So what?”
LikeLike
That works!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, I’m sure SCOTUS will be amused.
LikeLike
“Yeah, I’m sure SCOTUS will be amused.”
Before sticking your head in a bucket of ice water to put that hair fire out, please share, what law is being broken when people take a grievance to court?
And, by the way, the SCOTUS ruling trying to gut EPA was quite narrow and not on Constitutional grounds. It can be remedied by more detailed legislation giving more specific authority to EPA on a list of specific pollutants. That is going to happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good luck with getting more authority to the EPA.
Sue and Settle is a fraud on the public and the courts. They are friendly suits to compel the bureaucrats to do what they already want to do but are prohibited from doing so under their normal rules.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/stopping-sue-and-settle-1508369052?st=i5mmucmmwdfdpl3&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
“Good luck with getting more authority to the EPA.”
Good luck with stopping it. Do you know ANY young people? Currently, according to Pew, 2/3 of the public thinks the government should be doing MORE to protect the environment. I am sure you think that they are just not as smart as you, but we are still – more or less – a democracy.
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/
Of course, you failed the challenge to state what is illegal about environmental groups taking their grievances to court? I get it that you don’t want the environment protected, but that is not the test of what is illegal. You cheer when past norms are ignored to get you what you want, e.g., the President choosing Supreme Court justices. What goes around, comes around.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did you miss the fraud on the court part?
These are phony lawsuits with no opposition party. There is no real issue before the courts. It is only a farce to bypass the rules Congress imposed on the bureaucracy.
LikeLike
“Did you miss the fraud on the court part?”
You really don’t get it, do you? Your opinions do not have the force of law. I ask what is illegal that you are whining about, and you regurgitate your opinions.
Courts are perfectly able to dismiss lawsuits without merit. They can even sanction lawyers who bring them. It seldom happens. Especially in high profile cases.
Next you will claim that the courts are “corrupt.” Don’t bother.
LikeLiked by 1 person