Skip to comments.Top Trump Officials Clash Over Plan To Let Cars Pollute More [Scott Pruitt Policies Being Revoked]
Posted on 07/27/2018 10:54:28 PM PDT by zeestephen
Senior administration officials are clashing over President Trumps plan to roll back a major environmental rule...[which]...would also challenge the right of California and other states to set their own, more restrictive state-level pollution standards. On one side is the Environmental Protection Agencys acting chief, Andrew Wheeler, who has tried to put the brakes on the plan, fearing that its legal and technical arguments are weak and will set up the Trump administration for an embarrassing courtroom loss.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Pruitt was a Movement Conservative who had previously sued the EPA 14 times as Attorney General of Oklahoma. Pruitt had a spotless 14 year record of public service in Oklahoma before arriving in Washington D.C.
Just yesterday, Andrew Wheeler rolled back another Scott Pruitt policy, which allowed truck builders to put re-built engines into new truck chassis.
The EPA needs to be drawn down to a very small size. Its only function should be arbitrating disputes between state environmental protection agencies.
WASHING MACHINES THAT ACTUALLY WASH CLOTHES!!!
That is what I want for Christmas.
>> Trump allowed the Left to destroy Scott Pruitt
If you have any links to Trump vigorously defending Pruitt, I will be happy to read them.
Perhaps some historical perspective is necessary?
From memory, Newt Gingrich became the subject of more than 70 investigations and ethics complaints in the two year period following his election to Speaker of the House.
After he resigned, as I recall, one of his PACs had to pay a small fine, and all the other charges just...disappeared.
Thread rejected---- unread
The constitution is pretty straight forward.
The Federal Government has the power to regulate interstate commerce.
California can not on its own prevent the importation of cars made in another state.
The Federal Government also has the power of controlling trade with foreign nations.
I dont see how the state of California has a leg to stand on if the feds revoke their waver.
And by the way I seem to remember Obama revoking a waver or two for states to require work for welfare.
The California CARB (Cal. Air Resources Board) is out of control. It is trying to get so-called “green house gases” reductions from car emissions that are so small that it will raise the cost of cars there by hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, thus hurting the poor who need decent transportation.
The “Law of Diminishing Returns” means nothing to the environmental zealots who run CARB and other state environmental policies.
Plus federal judges, esp. the 9th Circuit, are very anti-US government in environmental SuperFund Cleanup cases. Their decisions in many major cases seem to be based more on their hatred for the Bush Administration (2000-2008)then on the EVIDENCE presented at them. Case in point, “Cadillac Fairview”. Facts meant nothing to them.
Another California State environmental case blunder was the infamous “Stringfellow” waste dump site disaster. Somewhere in a magazine, about 20 years ago, was a story roughly entitled “Stringfellow:The Longest Case on the Environment” or something in that vein.
One threat that California aimed at car manufacturers was that if they DID NOT improve their emissions controls in their cars (and trucks, esp. diesel) by a certain percentage (that “Diminishing Return” threshold), they would NOT be allowed to sell their cars in the state.
I hope the car manufacturers told Gov. Brown and his commies to go fuck themselves but a lot of these big companies don’t have the leadership and balls to go up against a Marxist dictatorship.
I would have preferred for all truck companies NOT TO SELL any of their products, including parts, in or too California. A boycott like that could have brought the state to its red knees and cut out a lot of the authoritarian policies of Moonbeam and the made-in-Marxland legislature (the most corrupt, Marxist, psychopathic, and incompetent one in the US).
Not sure what the trucking industry did but I heard that they did resist in some areas but may have caved in others.
Next on California’s anti-gasoline/fuel “hit list” are diesel-driven trucks, trains, and ships. Again it concerns miles per gallon and emissions amounts.
No trucks, no trains, no boats - NO FOOD.
Let the bastards starve and crops rot. Why not? Brown and LA did that to the largely Hispanic farmers of San Joaquin Valley years ago (cut off most of their water and sent it to LA). Now you know why Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Cal) is on the warpath against the Democrats who wrecked his district.
Behind every leftist news story is another one, more often than not called “The WHOLE TRUTH”, not half truths.
PS: I’ve got 25 years behind me in the environmental field and have helped to fight both the EPA and California in some of these cases. The judicial mental corruption out there is beyond belief.
I recall the fallout, but cannot speak to the details.
But I’m curious about your framing of Trump’s involvement — that he ‘allowed’ it.
I get the frustration where Trump couldn’t (or perhaps wouldn’t) save the good guy (in this case, Pruitt,) but I find it hard to believe that Trump would willingly toss aside anyone that supports his committed agenda.
Not sure I’m following the Gingrich analogy. Are you saying Trump should have rescued Pruitt, and immunize him from the BS?
New York Times, actually.
MSN is a news aggregator. It does not publish original content.
You have a dangerous habit.
Not paying attention to the political opposition means you are never prepared to counter punch.
Re: “I find it hard to believe that Trump would willingly toss aside anyone that supports his committed agenda.”
I don’t know how to respond to that.
That’s EXACTLY what happened.
Pruitt was the only consequential Conservative in the Trump Administration. And Trump, and the rest of the GOP, just sat there and watched him get destroyed.
Gingrich had the passion and the intellect to be the most consequential Conservative in American history.
And the GOP just sat there and watched him get destroyed.
Bumpty Bump Bump!
And gas cans with proper vents, and regular gas with no engine destroying ethanol, and lawnmowers that don’t stop if you hit a bump, and no deposit on a stupid alum can, and insecticide for mosquitoes that works for more than a hour, and... ...
“...and will set up the Trump administration for an embarrassing courtroom loss.”
I hear this WAY TOO OFTEN from people who claim to be on our side. I’m now becoming convinced that saying this is a way to advance liberalism, or at least stop conservatism, without being up front about.
In this particular case, let’s GET REAL. If Trump loses the suit, what’s the worry, he’ll be embarrassed and the media might run a hit piece on him? Really. Trump isn’t John McCain, who would have walked over red hot coals (and probably have the Sierra Club run the country) to try to prevent the media from saying something bad about him. We’re talking Trump here...his supporters have written off the courts as political activists working for the Democrats. Trust me, there would be NOTHING embarrassing about losing a case like this.
Again...it’s because the guy is a leftist.
I’m sorry, but Pruitt destroyed himself.
Trump appointees know that they will be under a microscope. So why do some do stupid?
Nothing personal though, one hopes your wife still gets that Chick Fil-A franchise and lives happily ever after if that's what she really wants. /s
Do you feel the same way about Robert Bork, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, and Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore?
The Political Left has made a powerful case that Donald Trump is politically and financially corrupt, and personally immoral.
Are you urging me to believe those reports, too?
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.