Back in the late sixties I had a summer job in Hartford and every morning on the way to work as I crested a hill I could barely see the skyline of Hartford because it was covered in brown smog.
I remember Love Canal, I remember Rouge River fire, I remember sitting on the banks of the Housatonic River watching the change colors from red to green to yellow, to blue from all the chemical plants up river. Then we have the Naugatuck River that smelled horrible and had mounts of suds at all the falls that blew away in the wind.
Now you eat fish out of most of the rivers, there are still some section that they say don’t eat the fish (Because of GE Pittsfield MA plant) but they are getting far and few between.
But now everything has changed for the worst! Trump’s Supreme Court has ruled!
What this means is that every, I mean every EPA, every OSHA, every HUD, every FDA, every ruling by an agency will be questioned in court crippling regulatory agencies… just like Project 2025 wanted.
VOTE Blue!
So I vote for old man, and not a lying used car salesman that I wouldn’t buy a car from let alone run a country.
I remember Love Canal, I remember Rouge River fire, I remember sitting on the banks of the Housatonic River watching the change colors from red to green to yellow, to blue from all the chemical plants up river. Then we have the Naugatuck River that smelled horrible and had mounts of suds at all the falls that blew away in the wind.
Now you eat fish out of most of the rivers, there are still some section that they say don’t eat the fish (Because of GE Pittsfield MA plant) but they are getting far and few between.
But now everything has changed for the worst! Trump’s Supreme Court has ruled!
Say good bye to the environment, say hello to pollution.Supreme Court delivers blow to power of federal agencies, overturning 40-year-old precedent
The important 1984 precedent gave federal bureaucrats flexibility to interpret the law when the language is unclear.
NBC News
By Lawrence Hurley
June 28, 2024The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a 40-year-old precedent that has been a target of the right because it is seen as bolstering the power of "deep state" bureaucrats.
In a ruling involving a challenge to a fisheries regulation, the court consigned to history a 1984 ruling called Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. That decision had said judges should defer to federal agencies in interpreting the law when the language of a statute is ambiguous, thereby giving regulatory flexibility to bureaucrats.
It is the latest in a series of rulings in which the conservative justices have taken aim at the power of federal agencies, including one on Thursday involving in-house Securities and Exchange Commission adjudications. The ruling was 6-3 with the conservative justices in the majority and liberal justices dissenting.
"Chevron is overruled," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority."
What this means is that every, I mean every EPA, every OSHA, every HUD, every FDA, every ruling by an agency will be questioned in court crippling regulatory agencies… just like Project 2025 wanted.
VOTE Blue!
So I vote for old man, and not a lying used car salesman that I wouldn’t buy a car from let alone run a country.
I just want to say that I have had to show OSHA around after we had an accident at work.
The inspector came up with a huge list of "non-compliance" items and fined us a question of a million dollars. We fixed all the items on the list and guess what they waived all the fines.
I think what lead them to waive the fines was me. One of the "non-compliance" items was that the sink faucet was not above the counter top. I asked the inspector why the faucet has to be above the level of the sink, his answer was so the water in the sink can't get siphoned back into the water lines contaminating the water line. I replied "That makes sense!" He looked at me and explained the violations to me as he found them.
When we had them fixed within a month he came out to reinspect the violations, nodding his head.
They waived all fines.
I believe that if you go with an adversarial attitude of us v. them, yeah it going to come out bad. But if you have an attitude where a safety audit is a good thing you turn it into an educational experience.
Update: 7:30 PM
An example of this ruling. Suppose Congress says no harmful chemicals shall be released in to our waterways. Well in the past Congress let the EPA decide what are harmful chemical, under this ruling the Congress will have to vote on each and every chemical and not the EPA to decide.
This would put a massive burden on Congress to vote on the thousand of chemicals on the market and when a new chemical comes out it will have to be debated in Congress bogging it down.
Update 2:30PM
It turns out that there were also other decisions handed down.
Supreme Court rules for Jan. 6 rioter challenging obstruction charge
The closely watched case focuses on a charge that former President Donald Trump also faces in his election interference case.NBC NewsBy Lawrence Hurley and Ryan J. ReillyThe Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of a former police officer who is seeking to throw out an obstruction charge for joining the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
The justices in a 6-3 vote on nonideological lines handed a win to defendant Joseph Fischer, who is among hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants — including former President Donald Trump — who have been charged with obstructing an official proceeding over the effort to prevent Congress' certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory.
The court concluded that the law, enacted in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act after the Enron accounting scandal, was only intended to apply to more limited circumstances involving forms of evidence tampering, not the much broader array of situations that prosecutors had claimed it covered.
The provision targets anyone who "obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so," but the court determined that its scope is limited by a preceding sentence in the statute referring to altering or destroying records.
So the question remains, with the insurrectionist get off "scot-free" for shutting down Congress?
To prove a violation, prosecutors now have to show that the defendant "impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or ... other things used in the proceeding," Roberts wrote.
Update: 5:30PM
It turns out that the Supreme Court also made homelessness a crime.
The Supreme Court has just ruled in the favor of Grants Pass, Oregon.The New RepublicBy Paige OamekJune 28, 2024The Supreme Court issued a ruling on Friday essentially criminalizing homelessness by ruling in favor of the city of Grants Pass, Oregon.
In a 6-3 decision that followed the usual ideological lines, the high court ruled that it is not “cruel and unusual punishment” for local governments to issue citations or jail people for sleeping outside even if there is nowhere for them to go.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorcuch quoted Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Mayor London Breed to make the point that the 9th Circuit had previously overstepped and was limiting local governments from utilizing “full panoply of tools in the policy toolbox.”
The case is a major win for Grants Pass, which has no public homeless shelters, but effectively banned homelessness by imposing escalating fines starting at $180 on those who sleep outside. Previously, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that cities must be able to provide and offer shelter to homeless individuals before they can impose fines and criminalize individuals for the act of sleeping outside. The Justice Department also intervened to say that the Ninth Circuit was correct in saying that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the effective criminalization of homelessness.
It was a bad day for court rulings!
No comments:
Post a Comment