or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Supreme Court Mullahs (5 lawyers) Order National Fatwa on Global Warming
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Supreme Court Mullahs (5 lawyers) Order National Fatwa on Global Warming

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 
As expected by those attuned to the five Supreme liberal politican-lawyers in charge of the Surpeme Ruling Council of America a new Fatwa decree has been issued to policy makers on our duty to war on Global Warming.

And as would be expected, the Court five needed a new theological manipulation of the people's laws text to impose their latest higher wisdom over democracy and a free government - still, we should note four voted for the people, and two legally faithful mullahs authored two dissents on behalf of democratic law:

Justice Roberts:

Quote:
...(they) made (the petitioner's) standing seem a lawyers game, rather than a fundamental limitation ensuring that courts function as courts and not intrude on the politically accountable branches.

...Petitioners difficulty in demonstrating causation and redressability is not surprising given the evident mismatch between the source of their alleged injurycatastrophic global warmingand the narrow subjectmatter of the Clean Air Act provision at issue in this suit. The mismatch suggests that petitioners true goal for this litigation may be more symbolic than anything else. The constitutional role of the courts, however, is to decide concrete casesnot to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982) ([Standing] tends to assure that the legal questions presented to the court will be resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicialaction).

Scalia:

Quote:
The Courts alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.

I, for one, hope the government of, by, and for the people do not resist the mullahs - they have declared and we must obey. Fall to your knees oh ignorant ones, bow and groval in admiration of their wisdom over our elected policy makers and their laws. All hail the legal mullahs altrustic guidence...
post #2 of 33
Roberts and Scalia = liberal mullahs. Classic wingnut mentality.

You crack me up Max.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #3 of 33
Even if there's a good point to be made, you can always count on a conservative to ruin it by bringing up "mullahs" and "fatwas."
post #4 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Even if there's a good point to be made, you can always count on a conservative to ruin it by bringing up "mullahs" and "fatwas."

Because, you know, Republicans can always be counted on for "responsible political discourse."
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #5 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Because, you know, Republicans can always be counted on for "responsible political discourse."

Gee, I know. It's refreshing to get a straight-forward, common sensical laying out of the facts so that we can all make up our own minds, which is the hallmark of conservative discourse.

Such a pleasant change of pace from the hysterical, hate-filled ranting of the irrational left.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #6 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Roberts and Scalia = liberal mullahs. Classic wingnut mentality.

You crack me up Max.

I am not sure what echo chamber in your mind you are laughing in, but where did I say or imply Robers and Scalia are 'liberal' mullahs???
post #7 of 33
This is really inappropriate.
post #8 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Even if there's a good point to be made, you can always count on a conservative to ruin it by bringing up "mullahs" and "fatwas."

For those not easily distracted by accurate characterizations on the state of the American Supreme Council/Court, the good points of Scalia and Roberts can be appreciated as self-evident truth. Most of us were not surprised at the results, regardless of the briefs or the "conventional wisdom" of legal-eagles who followed oral arguments. The court is divided by two factions, with swing Kennedy fairly predictable according to the political issue proffered.

Shorn of political issues (such as contract law) the court is tied to the law (hence Breyer's and others rational voting record in this area, regardless of the plantiffs)...but when a political issue gets on the docket the liberals postulate all sorts of nonsense to impose their views.

This case was obviously wrongly decided, but no matter - it imposes policy on democracy.
post #9 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

For those not easily distracted by accurate characterizations on the state of the American Supreme Council/Court

Try an inflammatory characterization.
post #10 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Try an inflammatory characterization.

It bothers you that I call these mountebanks 'mullahs', and their decrees little more than policy fatwas? Apparently you hold them in some esteem, a sentimental attachment I do not share.

At least half are dubious people having little character, a few so intellectually and morally debased that they ought to be a national embarrassment in the highest Supreme Council in the land (Kennedy in particular).
post #11 of 33
Here's what I don't think you understand Max. The people, via congress, passed environmental laws. That's democracy. Now the executive branch, which is required to implement the laws passed by the people, refuses to do so. So the court says "hey, you're supposed to implement the laws passed by the people." That's about as democratic a process as you can get.

To take the position that His Almighty Unitary Executiveness can do whatever he wants regardless of the law and the people sure is consistent with conservatism, but it's damn inconsistent with democracy.
post #12 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Here's what I don't think you understand Max. The people, via congress, passed environmental laws. That's democracy. Now the executive branch, which is required to implement the laws passed by the people, refuses to do so. So the court says "hey, you're supposed to implement the laws passed by the people." That's about as democratic a process as you can get.

To take the position that His Almighty Unitary Executiveness can do whatever he wants regardless of the law and the people sure is consistent with conservatism, but it's damn inconsistent with democracy.

But these are the issues.

First, regardless of administration, the first requirement of the law is that the plaintiff have standing; i.e. that they are directly harmed by a lack of application of the law and comply with Article III. Roberts, et. al., I think have clearly shown that the Court erred in even entertaining this case and (amusingly) punned it by referring to one notorious prior case of error in standing called "SCRAP".

Second, democracy is acting under the color of law. Congress passed a law BUT did not intend to regulate all emissions. It's intentions are easily discovered by historical reference and subsequent Congressional votes on attempts to regulate greenhouse gases. It also gave the EPA the authority to define pollution and pollutants, which it must do within the boundaries of reasonable meanings.

Democracy, through its laws, require standing AND implementing Congresses expressed intentions (within the plain text).

Judicial dictatorship requires an appeal to "unplain" theory, manipulation of prior findings, and conformance to the opinion of socially or politically progressive thinkers.

Naturally the axe-grinding left want to portray this as "more Bush defiance of the law", substituting their continual pot-banging expressions hatred for the man for the legal-moral issues at stake.
post #13 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

But these are the issues.

First, regardless of administration, the first requirement of the law is that the plaintiff have standing; i.e. that they are directly harmed by a lack of application of the law and comply with Article III. Roberts, et. al., I think have clearly shown that the Court erred in even entertaining this case and (amusingly) punned it by referring to one notorious prior case of error in standing called "SCRAP".

Second, democracy is acting under the color of law. Congress passed a law BUT did not intend to regulate all emissions. It's intentions are easily discovered by historical reference and subsequent Congressional votes on attempts to regulate greenhouse gases. It also gave the EPA the authority to define pollution and pollutants, which it must do within the boundaries of reasonable meanings.

Democracy, through its laws, require standing AND implementing Congresses expressed intentions (within the plain text).

Judicial dictatorship requires an appeal to "unplain" theory, manipulation of prior findings, and conformance to the opinion of socially or politically progressive thinkers.

Naturally the axe-grinding left want to portray this as "more Bush defiance of the law", substituting their continual pot-banging expressions hatred for the man for the legal-moral issues at stake.

I'm sort of in awe that you can use a phrase like "pot-banging expressions of hatred for the man" hard on the heels of calling Supreme Court judges "mullahs" issuing "fatwas".

And bonus points for defending your insane extremism by declaring it to be "objectively true".

Next up: Bush is just like Hitler, and that's not hate driven hyperbole because any fool can see that it's a fact.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #14 of 33
Confession: I am baffled by this thread, it's original post, and the characterization of Roberts and Scalia as "mullahs."

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #15 of 33
Oh look, a link.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Now that we've delved through Max's insane post:

My first reaction is that the decision makes sense. Congress can certainly pass legislation limiting the EPA's power if they wish to. The President can interact with the EPA change it's direction if he wishes to. What is the problem?

Of course, the article I'm linking to is not clear on the language:

Quote:
The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency must consider greenhouse gases as pollutants, in a blow to the White House.

"Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles," the court ruled.

I'm fine with #2, not so fine if the decision actually means #1. I agree they should and do have the authority...but what is this about "must?" That would qualify as a *fatwa is my book.

*EDIT: Let's stop using the term fatwa. Sorry. I'll say "inappropriate mandate" instead.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #16 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Next up: Bush is just like Hitler, and that's not hate driven hyperbole because any fool can see that it's a fact.

ZING!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #17 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

It bothers you that I call these mountebanks 'mullahs', and their decrees little more than policy fatwas? Apparently you hold them in some esteem, a sentimental attachment I do not share.

At least half are dubious people having little character, a few so intellectually and morally debased that they ought to be a national embarrassment in the highest Supreme Council in the land (Kennedy in particular).

I've noticed that it's much funner to read Max's posts if you imagine them being said by Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #18 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

But these are the issues.

First, regardless of administration, the first requirement of the law is that the plaintiff have standing; i.e. that they are directly harmed by a lack of application of the law and comply with Article III. Roberts, et. al., I think have clearly shown that the Court erred in even entertaining this case and (amusingly) punned it by referring to one notorious prior case of error in standing called "SCRAP".

Max-- let me try to explain a few things here.

As a general matter, judges (and opposing lawyers, smartly) unsympathetic to the respondents typically try to get the case thrown out through narrowly applying procedural law questions. One of those procedural law questions is "standing," which is not the "first requirement of the law" as you so elevate it. It's one of many doctrines in our Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that a plaintiff must satisfy to sue in federal court. But like most difficult questions of law, the rules come with a mountain of caselaw with all sorts of tests.

It makes sense to have hard and fast rules in some areas of law. Sometimes we just don't want to hear a particular kind of case. Other times we have hard and fast rules because we don't want to clog the court system with more claims than it can handle. Other times we do so for administrative efficiency. Those are all good reasons for a hard and fast rule. But in a lot of areas of law we allow more flexibility. We use soup tests and factors tests to weigh the pros and cons of hearing the particular case. This allows more plaintiffs to get to trial and more claims to be heard.

That's what we're seeing with the relative flexibility of standing doctrine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Second, democracy is acting under the color of law. Congress passed a law BUT did not intend to regulate all emissions. It's intentions are easily discovered by historical reference and subsequent Congressional votes on attempts to regulate greenhouse gases. It also gave the EPA the authority to define pollution and pollutants, which it must do within the boundaries of reasonable meanings.

I don't really know the case-- and I suspect you don't either.

Regardless, congress can easily circumvent the ruling by passing a law exempting greenhouse gas emissions if they want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Democracy, through its laws, require standing AND implementing Congresses expressed intentions (within the plain text).

Well, 1) there are a host of procedural law requirements parties have to meet and 2) congressional intent is certainly a consideration but it's often difficult to discern.
post #19 of 33
Most. Outrageous. Thread. Title. EVER.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #20 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Confession: I am baffled by this thread, it's original post, and the characterization of Roberts and Scalia as "mullahs."


Perhaps I have taken too much for granted, so my apologies. In summary:

a) I am expressing my distaste for the Supreme Court as a whole...an institution that acts much as Iran's Supreme Council which 'permits' some low level democracy but that, in fact, operates as religious or (if you like) imperial body which has the real power over society. It is not a co-equal branch (as it should be) but has become an oversight branch - just like Iran.

b) Like the mullahs, the "liberal" majority on the Court are theological mystics - rather than reading the plain text of the law they use a form of the intellectual equivelent of reading chicken entrails...e.g. "living constitutionalism" to go beyond the law to make new law and/or make policy.

c) Roberts and Scalia are mullahs, but they stick to plain text and the law. They are not mystics, they are honest judges. The whole court has too much power but at least they are honest in their readings.

To be fair, perhaps I should call the conservative four "judges" and the crazy five "mullahs' - but I think you get the points.

And finally, the case was wrongly decided.
post #21 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oh look, a link.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Now that we've delved through Max's insane post:

My first reaction is that the decision makes sense. Congress can certainly pass legislation limiting the EPA's power if they wish to. The President can interact with the EPA change it's direction if he wishes to. What is the problem?

I'm fine with #2, not so fine if the decision actually means #1. I agree they should and do have the authority...but what is this about "must?" That would qualify as a *fatwa is my book.

*EDIT: Let's stop using the term fatwa. Sorry. I'll say "inappropriate mandate" instead.

As I feared, my 'insane post' wrongly assumed general knowledge of this major, breaking story. I will followup with some links but in summary:

1) Roberts rightly established that the plaintiffs had no standing.
2) Scalia rightly established that if they actually had standing, the case had little merit.

Congress established it's intent in the clean air act, both at the time and in follow-up considerations of the control of global warming. The power granted did not include a regulation nor, as implied, a necessity to limit greenhouse gases.

How is that for reasonable?
post #22 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Max-- let me try to explain a few things here.

As a general matter, judges (and opposing lawyers, smartly) unsympathetic to the respondents typically try to get the case thrown out through narrowly applying procedural law questions. One of those procedural law questions is "standing," which is not the "first requirement of the law" as you so elevate it.

Standing is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for bringing suit - therefore it is among the first requirements. It is also one of the two crux issue in the 5-4 split. As Robert's pointed out "standing" is not some artifice of malleable convenience, it is an essential requirement and he used SCRAP (a prior case) as the only comparable example of SCOTUS blunders in standing: "...(they) made (the petitioner's) standing seem a lawyer’s game, rather than a fundamental limitation ensuring that courts function as courts and not intrude on the politically accountable branches."

Quote:
I don't really know the case-- and I suspect you don't either.

I know the case well enough to confirm Scalia's observation on its merits:

"The Court’s alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency."

Quote:
Regardless, congress can easily circumvent the ruling by passing a law exempting greenhouse gas emissions if they want.

Changing the status quo is never politically easy, and it is not the role of the Court's to make the people's policy contrary to Congress's prior intent and limited enabling legislation, and then challenge them them to veto it via legislation. Such disingenuous seizures of legislative policy making power is unacceptable to a Republic and contrary to a serious belief in Constiutionalism.
post #23 of 33
This thread is dumb. Why is anyone relying to this drivel?


Oh wait I just did.
post #24 of 33
Thread Starter 
As I have been asked to supply more detail to my assertions...

First, the plaintiffs had no standing. Article III of the Constitution is an essential underpinning of the seperation of powers and the petitioners did not remotely satisfy it. They failed to allege an "injury-in-fact" that is actual, imminent, particular, or concrete. (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). The plaintifff did not demonstrate that the so-called injury was 'fairly traceable' to unlawful conduct of the EPA and the the injury would be redressed through the requested relief. (Allen, 468 U.S. at 751).

Second, Congress did not deligate authority to the EPA to regulate the emissions of the greenhouse gases from motor vehicles, cows, or other sources. The text, history, logic, and subsquent history of the Clean Air Act confirm this. In 1978, Congress did not consider or ask - either in debate or its mandates - that greenhouse gases be regulated or considered a form of pollution. In fact it did not think of CO2 being a form of pollution, it did not enact rules concerning greenhouse gases NOR did it deligate such authority as an "intelligible principle" to shape agency policy.(Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S. at 133).

In none of its subsquent Acts did it presume it granted regulatory authority over greenhouse gases and, in fact, assumed the opposite. ( See National Climate Program Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-367, 92 Stat. 601 (1978) (an Act to establish a comprehensiveand coordinated national climate policy and program). In fact, more recently in the: http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs...a_10-24-06.pdf

Quote:
"1990 Amendments (are) several provisions encouraging non-regulatory approaches to greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, Congress considered and rejected an explicit proposal to regulate greenhouse gases. The amendments initially approved by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works included limits on automobile tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide, yet this language was stricken before passage due to staunch
opposition on many fronts. See Control of Emissions from New Highway Vehicles and Engines, 68 Fed. Reg. 52922, 59926-27 (Sept. 8, 2003). In the end, Congress told the EPA to study greenhouse gas emissions, not to regulate them. As summarized by one of the leading authorities on the Clean Air Act...".

And
Quote:
" In 1995, the Senate unanimously approved the so-called Byrd-Hagel resolution rejecting the Kyoto Protocol and stating that the U.S. will not act to control greenhouse gas emissions unless and until the rest of the world is willing to follow suit, S. 98, 105th Cong.(1997)..."

Therefore,
Quote:
"Given the extent of the congressional efforts to (directly) address the issues concerning GHGs and the absence of a credible mandate, there is little support for a claim that EPA has some latent power and obligation under the CAA to regulate these emissions. Arnold W. Reitze, Jr., Air Pollution Control Law: Compliance & Enforcement 427 (2001)."

Last, as Scalia pointed out: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/05-1120.pdf

Quote:
In the end, EPA concluded that since CAA authorization to regulate is generally based on a finding that an air pollutant causes or contributes to air pollution, 68 Fed.Reg. 52928, the concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases allegedly affecting the global climate are beyond the scope of CAAs authorization to regulate. [T]he term air pollution as used in the regulatory provisions cannot be interpreted to encompass global climate change. Ibid. Once again, the Court utterly fails toexplain why this interpretation is incorrect, let alone sounreasonable as to be unworthy of Chevron deference.

The Courts alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statutegiving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.
post #25 of 33
Not good enough. I would round up all large SUV drivers along with their packs, and send them to China to face death squads ... hooded ... in shackles.
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
post #26 of 33
Quote:
No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.

Note the unintended double entendre inherent in the expression, "...the responsible agency." The bastion of environmental and public protection and responsibility, the EPA under the Bush administration. Yup. Don't you get it? The EPA has continuously acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner under this Administration.

Max seems intelligent, not withstanding occasional mispellings and grammatical errors. Yet he takes an extreme tack, especially with regards to environmental issues. He is so far to the right he is seemingly alienating other conservatives. Max, are you a paid GOP operative? I'm only half-joking.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #27 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100mph View Post

Not good enough. I would round up all large SUV drivers along with their packs, and send them to China to face death squads ... hooded ... in shackles.

I think you're not really joking, only exaggerating. Just thought someone should say it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #28 of 33
Thread Starter 
[QUOTE=Aquatic;1063950]
Quote:
he takes an extreme tack, especially with regards to environmental issues. He is so far to the right he is seemingly alienating other conservatives. Max, are you a paid GOP operative? I'm only half-joking.

So now I get ring side commentary? I have no objection, other than your lack of colorful and vivid banter. Perhaps you should consider this as a guide:

"Aside from some questionable theatrical taunting from Max, his ring 'extremism' has been in the relentless pummeling of the environmental-Scotus adoring tag team. So far, all the tag team tactics of indignation, lecturing, and finger wagging has failed to stem the onslaught, their ideological blood gushing from their no longer attractive sniffing noses. Even Max's fans are calling this ring bruiser insane..."

"So far, the team has not come out for the bell - looks like the fight may be called. "

Shout words of encouragement to their corner, this one is too easy.

And, BTW, assuming you are half-serious I have not worked for the Republican Party for 30 years and never been a 'paid' operative - the paid members are much better at alienating fellow conservatives.
post #29 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think you're not really joking, only exaggerating. Just thought someone should say it.

It may not be funny to some, but would be very refreshing for the rest of the planet.
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
post #30 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100mph View Post

It may not be funny to some, but would be very refreshing for the rest of the planet.

It would also be stupid and useless.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #31 of 33
So Max, do you care to respond to my point regarding reasoned judgement by a responsible agency?
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #32 of 33
Thread Starter 
Aquatic,

Sure, later this PM when I finish gardening.
post #33 of 33
Thread Starter 
Aquatic,

You find humor that the agency responsible for preventing pollution could make a responsible judgment to defer regulation of a pollutant.

Of course, responsible has several meanings and used in the above structure it does bring a smile, though logically consistent.

As the EPA has a broader purpose (including improving public welfare through its area of authority), I see nothing inconsistent in deferring pointless spending on a nearly insoluble problem.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Supreme Court Mullahs (5 lawyers) Order National Fatwa on Global Warming