Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The above is non-responsive.
For clarity, I never suggested the EPA is exceeding its legal authority. What I have stated, clearly, several times is that the EPA has too much power. In addition I fear abuse.
I understand the desire held by most here to want to go back to the - they don't accept science - narrative. It must be a wonder how conservatives make a cup of coffee. We are all the same, we all get the same talking points, we all think the same way, we are all extremist, etc., etc., That as a given, my response would be to encourage all conservatives to not take any critique or input from liberals seriously. You may think conservatives are being isolated more and more by the tactic on display here - to the contrary, if you step outside of your usual circles you will find the conservative message is gaining traction. Expect the non-science believers to be in the full position of setting the political agenda in 2012.
|
Non-responsive? Thats pretty funny coming you, ace.
You think EPA has too much power. Well, guess what. In the case of the Clean Air Act and regulating greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2, the US Supreme Court disagrees with you. And, the Court is the final aribter, not you or the Republican House.
But you just wont accept that and instead are attempting to defend a bill that nullifies the Court's clear and unambiguous decision.
I also addressed your "what if" scenarios. If the EPA attempts to impose regulations beyond the scope of the Court's decision or what you or the Republicans or the Koch brothers deem to be excessive, the recourse is through that same Court....if or when that occurs. And not through bogus legislation to circumvent the process with the sole purpose of denying EPA the authority to do what the Court determined it has the authority and obligation to do.
I dont know how to be more direct and responsive than that.