Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 04/19/2011 12:31:08 PM PDT by library user
Why we need someone to the right of Obama to serve as our next President.
If you knew what gun control was, there would never have been HELP said. One shot, one kill
Ruth Bader Ginsberg arguing for separation of powers?
Gimme a Break!!!
De-fund now!!
SCOTUS is right. It is the role of Congress, not SCOTUS to defund EPA, even abolish it for bad behavior.
Nice catch.
—Usage note 3. Enormity has been in frequent and continuous use in the sense “immensity” since the 18th century: The enormity of the task was overwhelming. Some hold that enormousness is the correct word in that sense and that enormity can only mean “outrageousness” or “atrociousness”: The enormity of his offenses appalled the public. Enormity occurs regularly in edited writing with the meanings both of great size and of outrageous or horrifying character, behavior, etc. Many people, however, continue to regard enormity in the sense of great size as nonstandard.
Looks like the US Supreme Court may soon be declaring itself an enemy of the people of the United States and a protector of big government.
I have no legal background, so concerning this case, I’m not sure which group of lawyers are the best at making engineering decisions.
I, however, know a hell of a lot more about producing electricity than any non-producer government bureaucrat since making power is my field.
Unfortunately, there aren’t enough people in this country who understand that along with water vapor, CO2 is the product of perfect combustion, neither of which are pollutants.
Nitrous Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, etc are true pollution, AND they can be reduced by proper control of the combustion process. It is actually beneficial to the power companies to reduce these emissions since it denotes incomplete combustion. You’ll have to burn more fuel to make the same amount of heat for the boilers; it’s less efficient for those plants to actually pollute the air.
Carbon Dioxide on the other hand, can not be reduced by tighter controls. It’s the result of complete combustion. The only way to reduce CO2 of a plant is to make less electricity.
What the populous doesn’t seem to grasp is that the power companies don’t make excess electricity and stockpile it in a warehouse somewhere. The power produced is consumed within a blink of an eye, and the amount the plants make is a direct result of what the people are consuming at that instant.
Since the US gets over 70% of its electricity from fossil fuels, reducing CO2 means either turning off your A/C, TV, computer, space heaters, subways, lightbulbs, ipod chargers, phone chargers, Nissan Leaf/Chevy Volt chargers, washers & dryers, refrigerators, hair dryers, etc., or building another 400 nuclear plants on top of the 104 we have.
What the bureaucrats propose is not as easy as checking the air pressure in your tires every week, bringing a tote bag to the grocery store, drinking tap water instead of bottled, or changing your company logo color to green on Earth Day. It’s a complete change of our lifestyle.
Since there is no such thing as human caused climate change, we are living through an Orwellian nightmare. From which we may not awaken.
Lock and load folks. They re are coming for your CO2.
Since there is no such thing as human caused climate change, we are living through an Orwellian nightmare. From which we may not awaken.
Lock and load folks. They are coming for your CO2.
Says the activist judge. What utter BS.
Judges routinely set aside laws and policy when they don't agree with them.
Now the fight is to keep the bullet box viable.
” Judges routinely set aside laws and policy when they don’t agree with them. “
Including, on occasion, the laws of physics, chemistry, economics, and common sense.....
IF they found they endanger....?
If we have a new GOP POTUS in 2013, one of the highest priorities should be to fire Lisa Jackson and other traitors. Of course that assumes that whoever that POTUS would be would not be a traitor.
It’s viable until I run out of bullets.
This lawsuit, if allowed to continue, would have established that individual States can sue “carbon emitters” (i.e. energy production) in other States based upon a rather dubious claim of harm to the citizens of their State.
Striking down this case is the right thing to do.
Acknowledging the EPA isn’t, but as a mechanism Congress has put in place to regulate interstate commerce such that State A cannot sue to halt energy production in State B, it seems to fit the bill.
That's the way I read it as well. I don't understand the responses on this thread either. As you said, striking down this case seems to be the correct course of action. Either people didn't read the article, or I am missing something.
We’re the Charlie Browns and the siren song of elections is our Lucy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.