Skip to comments.State suing for responsible scientific conclusions
Posted on 03/15/2010 8:49:59 AM PDT by kwill4u
The Environmental Protection Agency recently concluded that man-made greenhouse gas emissions including carbon dioxide are harmful pollutants and must be regulated. The lawsuit I filed challenging that finding does not address the disputed science surrounding global warming. Instead, it focuses on the indisputable fact that the EPA relied on information that has been discredited,
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
God Bless Texas.
Please ~ping~ me to articles relating to the 10th Amendment/States Rights so I can engage the pinger.
I've stopped monitoring threads and unilaterally adding names to the ping list, so if you want on or off the list just say so.
Tenth Amendment Chronicles Thread
Tenth Amendment Center
The Right Side of Life/State Initiatives
Firearms Freedom Act
|CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES|
Curious, how many other molecules are classified “pollutants” and are also necessary compounds that without, all plant life on the earth ceases to exist?
In the words of Lord Monckton:
“JAIL THE LOT”
Sic ‘em, Texans.
In order for a person to file a lawsuit against an agency of the 'Feral Goobermint'(sic), you must first have the agency's permission to sue them. I'm series. I read this on a Law Library website and here on FR a couple weeks ago.
This is different than suing the 'Feral Goobermint'(sic) as a whole for violating your rights. Or like that mope in CA who finally lost is his 'God' lawsuit last week when the 9th Circus told him to go pound sand.
So unless the EPA says, okay sure, you can sue us. You're s.o.l. and can't sue them.
A point of clarification: Greg Abbott is not suing the EPA on behalf of himself. He is suing the EPA, on behalf of the state of Texas. He's the current Attorney General.
If your comments also apply to state governments, then you may be correct. But, Abbott is not suing for damages. He's basically filing a lawsuit to force the EPA to act according to their own laws. In other contexts, it's called a "writ of mandamus", although I don't know if it applies in this case.
The lawsuit I filed challenging that finding does not address the disputed science surrounding global warming. Instead, it focuses on the indisputable fact that the EPA relied on information that has been discredited...Thanks FGS!
EPA has a small problem. No money to commit to the study. Adoption of the IPCC study was free and quick.
Writing a proposal for a contract and taking bids takes a long time. (The EPA relies on contractors for getting real work done)
If co2 is so damn dangerous, why is the FDA allowing it to carbonate our dodas? Not that I drink that much....but...if its now a poison....Im just sayin....
I drink my two or three tall glasses of highly carbonated CoCola per day, and have made it past four score and three.
Just sayin' (for EPA's benefit)