Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby origami » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:06 am

Right, that dumb shit is just not gonna fly.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby origami » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:08 am

Before this dumb digression, this is where we were: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... 3#p2880267

origami wrote:Long quote incoming, bear with me:

The Clean Air Act establishes three main regulatory pro-
grams to control air pollution from stationary sources such
as power plants. Clean Air Amendments of 1970, 84 Stat.
1676, 42 U. S. C. §7401 et seq. One program is the New
Source Performance Standards program of Section 111, at
issue here. The other two are the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) program, set out in Sections
108 through 110 of the Act, 42 U. S. C. §§7408–7410, and
the Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) program, set out in
Section 112, §7412. To understand the place and function
of Section 111 in the statutory scheme, some background on
the other two programs is in order.

The NAAQS program addresses air pollutants that “may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or wel-
fare,” and “the presence of which in the ambient air results
from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources.”
§7408(a)(1). After identifying such pollutants, EPA estab-
lishes a NAAQS for each. The NAAQS represents “the max-
imum airborne concentration of [the] pollutant that the
public health can tolerate.” Whitman v. American Trucking
Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457, 465 (2001); see §7409(b). EPA,
though, does not choose which sources must reduce their
pollution and by how much to meet the ambient pollution
target. Instead, Section 110 of the Act leaves that task in
the first instance to the States, requiring each “to submit to
[EPA] a plan designed to implement and maintain such
standards within its boundaries.” Train v. Natural Re-
sources Defense Council, Inc., 421 U. S. 60, 65 (1975); §7410.
The second major program governing stationary sources
is the HAP program. The HAP program primarily targets
pollutants, other than those already covered by a NAAQS,
that present “a threat of adverse human health effects,” in-
cluding substances known or anticipated to be “carcino -
genic, mutagenic, teratogenic, neurotoxic,” or otherwise
“acutely or chronically toxic.” §7412(b)(2).

EPA’s regulatory role with respect to these toxic pollu-
tants is different in kind from its role in administering the
NAAQS program. There, EPA is generally limited to deter-
mining the maximum safe amount of covered pollutants in
the air. As to each hazardous pollutant, by contrast, the
Agency must promulgate emissions standards for both new
and existing major sources. §7412(d)(1). Those standards
must “require the maximum degree of reduction in emis-
sions . . . that the [EPA] Administrator, taking into consid-
eration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and
any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and
energy requirements, determines is achievable . . . through
application of measures, proc esses, methods, systems or
techniques” of emission reduction. §7412(d)(2). In other
words, EPA must directly require all covered sources to re-
duce their emissions to a certain level. And it chooses that
level by determining the “maximum degree of reduction” it
considers “achievable” in practice by using the best existing
technologies and methods. §7412(d)(3).

Thus, in the parlance of environmental law, Section 112
directs the Agency to impose “technology-based standard[s]
for hazardous emissions,” Alaska Dept. of Environmental
Conservation v. EPA, 540 U. S. 461, 485, n. 12 (2004) (em-
phasis added). This sort of “‘technology-based’ approach fo-
cuses upon the control technologies that are available to in-
dustrial entities and requires the agency to . . . ensur[e]
that regulated firms adopt the appropriate cleanup technol-
ogy.” T. McGarity, Media-Q uality, Technology, and Cost-
Benefit Balancing Strategies for Health and Environmen-
tal Regulation, 46 Law & Contemp. Prob. 159, 160 (Summer
1983) (McGarity). (Such “technologies” are not limited to
literal technology, such as scrubbers; “changes in the design
and operation” of the facility, or “in the way that employees
perform their tasks,” are also available options. Id., at 163,
n. 18.)

The third air pollution control scheme is the New Source
Performance Standards program of Section 111. §7411.
That section directs EPA to list “categories of stationary
sources” that it determines “cause[], or contribute[ ] signifi-
cantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated
to endanger public health or welfare.” §7411(b)(1)(A)


What the justices are doing here is laying out, with specific references, something we all already know but commies operate by pretending like we don't all already know: the EPA was founded for and is tasked with avoiding pollution in the air that is bad for your health. It was not founded for or tasked with regulating the planet's atmosphere to avoid some hypothetical future carbon-induced apocalypse. There is a difference between determining what substances are very bad for your health in the air and what can be done to reduce them, and saving the world from climactic change.

Everybody knows this intuitively. Conservatives know it and now and then are brave enough to say it, and communists know it but pretend like they don't so that they can twist an existing legal organization into something new that they can't get passed in Congress.

Now, the Supreme Court is brave enough to lay it on paper, and have done us the favour of pointing out the specific regulations and legislations that describe what only a profound ill intention tries to tell us is not the truth.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby Mr Reasonable » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:09 am

come on man. you pretend to want to talk about this case, and one question sends you into a page and a half of ad homs and commie bashing that's wild. just explain yourself whenever you're ready
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32402
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby Mr Reasonable » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:09 am

so you're just happy that a regulatory agency has been weakened? that's it?
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32402
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby origami » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:10 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:come on man. you pretend to want to talk about this case, and one question sends you into a page and a half of ad homs and commie bashing that's wild. just explain yourself whenever you're ready



Go cry about it somewhere else.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby origami » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:11 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:so you're just happy that a regulatory agency has been weakened? that's it?


I can't even begin with how dumb this quesiton is.

Be honest, you cheated on all your exams.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby origami » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:11 am

Here's a challenge for you, quote something from the decision that you don't like.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby Mr Reasonable » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:15 am

that's 2 questions you've refused to answer. i'm not going to read a 100 page scotus decision that idgaf about. especially not when it's apparent that you're whole take is simple, "regulashun bad...weakening regulaterz gud". there isn't anything stimulating about watching you try and intellectualize such a simplistic view
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32402
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby Mr Reasonable » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:16 am

i expect better out of you than this
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32402
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby origami » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:17 am

Except I have quoted extensively and provided ample reasoning.

All you have done is shoot out retarded one-liners that you evidently took from twatter somewhere like a braying sheep.

I'm happy with my position.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby Mr Reasonable » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:18 am

reasoning for what? your position? that regulashunz bad and weakenin regulaterz is gud?
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32402
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby origami » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:18 am

Reasoning for an informed opinion that you would be in no position to understand, being entirely uninformed.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby Mr Reasonable » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:19 am

i mean how is that interesting? or original? why bother attempting to intellectualize it with all these quotes and shit? it's just your standard libertarian anti govt anti regulation view. it's like the same view that millions of teenage boys have after they read atlas shrugged
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32402
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby origami » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:20 am

Except I read the syllabus, and worked through it with logic.

You just whined and moaned that you don't understand it and you don't like it.
Last edited by origami on Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby Mr Reasonable » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:20 am

origami wrote:Reasoning for an informed opinion that you would be in no position to understand, being entirely uninformed.


the speed with which you go from refusing to answer questions to blatant ad homs is telling.

everyone who doesn't agree w/ me right off the bat is a dumb commie? is that it really?
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32402
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby Mr Reasonable » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:20 am

origami wrote:Except I read the syllabus, and worked through it with logic.

You just whined and moaned that you don't understand it and you don't like it.


ah yes you did the logic i mean come on man you should be offended at yourself just for even typing this
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32402
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby origami » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:21 am

No lol anyone who says some dumb shit that reveals they neither informed themselves nor cared to about what they are so opinionated about.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby origami » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:21 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:
origami wrote:Except I read the syllabus, and worked through it with logic.

You just whined and moaned that you don't understand it and you don't like it.


ah yes you did the logic i mean come on man you should be offended at yourself just for even typing this


I am aware that actually investigating the things you claim to care about is offensive to you commies.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby Mr Reasonable » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:21 am

origami wrote:Except I read the syllabus, and worked through it with logic.

You just whined and moaned that you don't understand it and you don't like it.


i just asked you a question and you flipped out and started calling me a commie
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32402
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby origami » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:22 am

This, that, why are you so mean.

Why don't you just read the thing ffs. It's not so difficult, it's pretty light reading material.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby Mr Reasonable » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:24 am

because i'm not doing assigned reading for a philosophy forum. what makes this case so special to you that you've taken such an interest in it? you started the thread. talk about it.
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32402
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby Mr Reasonable » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:24 am

start by explaining why you hate clean air
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32402
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby Mr Reasonable » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:24 am

plus you refuse to read alito's book i've been telling you to read that for some time
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32402
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby origami » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:24 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:because i'm not doing assigned reading for a philosophy forum. what makes this case so special to you that you've taken such an interest in it? you started the thread. talk about it.


It's assigned reading if you are going to have an opinion on it.

Otherwise, if you give an opinion on it, that makes you an idiot.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

Re: Reading through the Supreme Court EPA case syllabus

Postby origami » Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:25 am

This, that, you hate clean air.

Meanwhile you don't even know what the case is about.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Current Events



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users