The next SCOTUS target won’t be gay marriage. It will be…

If we are going to err on the side of extinct species and Great Lakes catching on fire again, or a few businesses can’t make as much money, my vote is clear.

 

“Our national government today is not structured to make a coordinated attack on the pollutants which debase the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that grows our food. Indeed, the present governmental structure for dealing with environmental pollution often defies effective and concerted action,”

That was Nixon speaking on the creation of the EPA. Nothing has changed in terms of the structure of our national government. The EPA's powers should remain

 

Sorry dodo, but my poison factory's growth slowed in the final quarter

 

Duck hunters: save the wetlands
Also duck hunters: screw the EPA

 

Psst, the court knows this and their ruling has nothing to do with law

 

Apparently you long for the days when the air was virtually unbreathable in many US cities.

 

Better than some "expert" not accountable to you or me.

I'd rather have politicians accountable to the people and experts on government payroll to advise them and perhaps enforce the regulations. That's better than unelected experts doing everything and the folks in Congress just pointing the finger all day getting paid to look pretty.

 

Hard to believe you’re serious. How do you expect them to know or understand a single thing about the truly technical stuff?

 

Brawndo’s got what plants crave. Let’s vote on it.

 

So you are for only phd’s and truly the elite running our country? No common man huh? I hope there are only 435 issues.

 

The experts can inform them.

But it's the elected politician's signature that should be on the dotted line, not the expert.

Now if you're too stupid to even make an informed decision, then you probably shouldn't be in Congress. But that's for the people to decide.

 

Who do you think Congress consults when they write laws? Remember that professor who became the boogey man during the passage of the ACA?

 

Pit Boss asked if Republicans:

Don’t they drink water?
NO, Whiskey and Beer Only.

breath air?
Only through cigarettes.

, visit nat’l parks?
Yeah, the Vegas Strip.

 

What professor just curious?

 

Jonathan Gruber, an economist at MIT

 

Quite the opposite actually.

Experts running the country would be the phds and elites running the country.

Politicians? Outsiders with the right backing can work their way in. Love them or hate them, look at AOC or Donald Trump.

 

Ultimately what you get is instead of an executive agency deciding on what the ambiguities in a law mean in terms of practical application, you will get judges, who are also unelected experts (though only on matters of law).

 

Settling "ambiguities" in a law is a very different issue than "writing law" itself.

And those issues should be handled very differently.

 

I have no good response so I will leave a quote from Ignatius to summarize the cacophony of sounds that escaped my rear:

“I would very much like to know what the Founding Fathers would say if they could see these children being debauched to further the cause of Clearasil. However, I always suspected that democracy would come to this . . . “A firm rule must be imposed upon our nation before it destroys itself. The United States needs some theology and geometry, some taste and decency. I suspect that we are teetering on the edge of the abyss".