EPA Muzzling Scientists on Climate Change

#51
#51
hog88 said:
You have no ****ing clue how this works so just stop.
Click to expand...
Yes, judges go around inspecting power plants and than tell the energy companies how much coal they can burn. :eek:lol: The irony of you saying someone doesn't have clue, I did notice you didn't add anything of use. Please do tell how it works Mr. Helper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#52
#52
LSU-SIU said:
Yes, judges go around inspecting power plants and than tell the energy companies how much coal they can burn. :eek:lol: The irony of you saying someone doesn't have clue, I did notice you didn't add anything of use. Please do tell how it works Mr. Helper.
Click to expand...

:popcorn:
 
#53
#53
LSU-SIU said:
Yes, judges go around inspecting power plants. :eek:lol: The irony of you saying someone doesn't have clue, I did notice you didn't add anything.
Click to expand...

Judges get involved when issues cross state lines. If there was a plant in KY (to use your example) discharging pollution that found it's way into TN and the two states can't agree TN would file suit in federal court.

Even when the federal EPA gets involved it usually winds up in federal court.
 
#54
#54
hog88 said:
Judges get involved when issues cross state lines. If there was a plant in KY (to use your example) discharging pollution that found it's way into TN and the two states can't agree TN would file suit in federal court.

Even when the federal EPA gets involved it usually winds up in federal court.
Click to expand...

I am disappoint
 
#55
#55
hog88 said:
Judges get involved when issues cross state lines. If there was a plant in KY (to use your example) discharging pollution that found it's way into TN and the two states can't agree TN would file suit in federal court.

Even when the federal EPA gets involved it usually winds up in federal court.
Click to expand...

I never said otherwise, but it would always involve the EPA. There is nothing for the court to "judicial review", the federal courts "judicial review" the lower agencies orders/determinations.

Unanimous Supreme Court Tells EPA Its Orders Can Be Appealed | Marten Law

Tell you what in my example, get rid of the EPA and have Tennessee sue Kentucky over EPA regulations in which the EPA does not exist - the court will have to dismiss the complaint for failure to state claim or lack of jurisdiction, or both. Your understanding of how the equity arm of the federal government works is about a 1 out of 10. You have no idea what you are talking about on any level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#58
#58
n_huffhines said:
Except it's what I was saying and you were telling me I was wrong...
Click to expand...

You are wrong. You said you could get rid of the EPA and a person could sue. No, they can't - generally, the federal courts judicial review the lower agency orders. In your instance, no order would exist nor the agency to be able to sue.

Instead of you wanting to be right, maybe you should be reading. I have simply explained how this works, and even gave you an idiot guide to it - if you are too lazy to read it, that is on you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#60
#60
LSU-SIU said:
You are wrong. You said you could get rid of the EPA and a person could sue. No, they can't - generally, the federal courts judicial review the lower agency orders. In your instance, no order would exist nor the agency to be able to sue.

Instead of you wanting to be right, maybe you should be reading. I have simply explained how this works, and even gave you an idiot guide to it - if you are too lazy to read it, that is on you.
Click to expand...

does it have to be a federal lower agency? Or would a state version apply?

does bring into question how only state run EPAs would function.

TN says 99ppm is bad, KY says 150ppm is bad; can TN sue for 100ppm pollution?
 
#62
#62
LouderVol said:
does it have to be a federal lower agency? Or would a state version apply?

does bring into question how only state run EPAs would function.

TN says 99ppm is bad, KY says 150ppm is bad; can TN sue for 100ppm pollution?
Click to expand...

State EPA-like orders/determination are judicial reviewed according to State law so the State's APA would generally govern. There could be situations where things could end up in federal court depending on the situation, but generally it would be a State court issue. Congress would have to provide the EPA the ability to regulate what Kentucky is doing --- in the example, so without the EPA and the regulations what exactly would Kentucky be violating?

In State its Tennessee law, at the intrastate level, federal law, but what they guys are saying is you get rid of everything - well, don't know how you sue when you get rid of all the regulation and the agency to start with.

Tennessee APA
TN UAPA 4-5-101 Uniform Administrative Procedures Act

You can see many example in Tennessee with the Nolichucky link I provided for an example under your State code.

The problem is, people think you can just sue, without authority or jurisdiction - well, technically you can and the court can dismiss the case.

Basically, what these guys are saying is get rid of the EPA which is getting rid of the regulatory ability of the federal government from which one could sue in equity. It makes zero sense what these guys are talking about because that is not how any of this works.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#65
#65
hog88 said:
I make my living dealing with this so.
Click to expand...

Should you be thought. (not a question) If you don't know how the administrative procedures act works or why it exists I am very suspect.

Here is something, kind of similar to what you guys were talking about.... the States tried to go directly to the SoCt., they denied hearing the case.
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-co...Okla.-original-suit-vs.-Colorado-12-18-14.pdf

Supreme Court denies Oklahoma and Nebraska challenge to Colorado pot – The Denver Post

A person can sue a rock, it doesn't really mean anything. States were desperate with no real remedy, the situation is not exactly the same but similar. You definitely don't have many paths to remedy without the EPA. imo I fail to see it and nobody has offered the path.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#69
#69
hog88 said:
:lolabove: :good!:
Click to expand...

Well, its very easy, just show me an example suit and that should be able to solve this. You say there is remedy path in federal court, please show me.

Okay, so let me get this right - Congress gets rid of Title 40, exactly what specific type of action does Tennessee file against Kentukcy, where does it file it, what kind of remedy is being requested and under what authority/jurisdiction does the Court have authority to hear the action and provide the remedy? (in the example provided)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#70
#70
The epa isn’t the end all, be all.

They go head to head with the DOT all the time.

Look no farther than coke cola...
 
#71
#71
Nuclear doesn't have a waste problem. Nuclear actually captures it's waste. Stores it in concrete cans. And in the future, when the idiots have finally died off, we will recycle it. It's other sources that have a waste problem. Since they just emit it to the atmosphere.

And dumb EPA policies. Radon. The levels of radiation from Radon that the average non-miner person comes in contact with is less than what's already in their bloodstream.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#72
#72
Hog, I will help you... let's change the situation. Tennessee really has no remedy to force any type of regulation on Kentucky as far as EPA type regulation without the federal government.

Okay, lets say Corporation X which is domiciled in Kentucky, but Kentucky does not regulate pollution and in the example given, Title 40 and the EPA do not exist. Corporation X runs a few very large plants that are on Dale Hollow Lake, they emit large amount of every type of pollutant without regard to the harm to either the people in Kentucky or Tennessee.

Lets say the people that live on the Dale Hollow Lake in Tennessee sue Corporation X in a federal court for damages. Okay, completely possible as far as I know. The problem is multiple fold:

1. How much pollutant was discharged? there is no requirement to even keep records as there is no EPA and no state EPA to have the corporation comply, nor licensing, and testing under the example given.

2. How much of the pollutant that ended up on the property of Tennessee was from Corporation X, if there are many other corporations on the Kentucky side of the lake doing the same thing? No records, no testing, etc.

3. How do you prove all this stuff? Very hard as no records and many sources of potential pollution - who caused the damages.

4. Lets say Corporation X has no real assets and has no insurance as there is no requirement for them to have it because what they are doing isn't regulated - how does the person get remedy?

5. The State of Tennessee would still have no real ability to stop Corporation X or other corporations on the Kentucky side of the Lake from putting pollution into the Lake, so it would just keep happening - start no or limited asset Corporation X, lease plant from Corporation A, when Corporation X gets sued, start no or limited asset Corporation Y to lease the plant again.

6. The State of Tennessee has no ability to force Kentucky to regulate, which is why the EPA was created.

Do individuals have the ability to sue in federal court over damages regardless of whether Title 40 exists? I can't see why not, but as far as pollution coming in from the State of Kentucky under this circumstance there is basically no remedy that I can see for the State of Tennessee without the EPA to stop pollution from coming in. I guess war is an option.

This is the reason why a ton of manufacturing is done in China and other parts of the world - they than don't have to worry about the waste.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#75
#75
LSU-SIU said:
Hog, I will help you... let's change the situation. Tennessee really has no remedy to force any type of regulation on Kentucky as far as EPA type regulation without the federal government.

Okay, lets say Corporation X which is domiciled in Kentucky, but Kentucky does not regulate pollution and in the example given, Title 40 and the EPA do not exist. Corporation X runs a few very large plants that are on Dale Hollow Lake, they emit large amount of every type of pollutant without regard to the harm to either the people in Kentucky or Tennessee.

Lets say the people that live on the Dale Hollow Lake in Tennessee sue Corporation X in a federal court for damages. Okay, completely possible as far as I know. The problem is multiple fold:

1. How much pollutant was discharged? there is no requirement to even keep records as there is no EPA and no state EPA to have the corporation comply, nor licensing, and testing under the example given.

2. How much of the pollutant that ended up on the property of Tennessee was from Corporation X, if there are many other corporations on the Kentucky side of the lake doing the same thing? No records, no testing, etc.

3. How do you prove all this stuff? Very hard as no records and many sources of potential pollution - who caused the damages.

4. Lets say Corporation X has no real assets and has no insurance as there is no requirement for them to have it because what they are doing isn't regulated - how does the person get remedy?

5. The State of Tennessee would still have no real ability to stop Corporation X or other corporations on the Kentucky side of the Lake from putting pollution into the Lake, so it would just keep happening - start no or limited asset Corporation X, lease plant from Corporation A, when Corporation X gets sued, start no or limited asset Corporation Y to lease the plant again.

6. The State of Tennessee has no ability to force Kentucky to regulate, which is why the EPA was created.

Do individuals have the ability to sue in federal court over damages regardless of whether Title 40 exists? I can't see why not, but as far as pollution coming in from the State of Kentucky under this circumstance there is basically no remedy that I can see for the State of Tennessee without the EPA to stop pollution from coming in. I guess war is an option.

This is the reason why a ton of manufacturing is done in China and other parts of the world - they than don't have to worry about the waste.
Click to expand...

Who the **** said to get rid of state agencies? The reason we don't need federal agencies is because every state has one and we have courts to decide in disputes between them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top