The Important Story You're Not Hearing Much About

This is pretty f*cked up:

The Important Story You’re Not Hearing Much About

"What would you think of someone who got sued, lost in court, and celebrated the loss? You’d think there is something seriously amiss. In fact this has been the longstanding practice of a number of federal agencies, who actively cooperate with activist groups (invariably on the left) to set up lawsuits against agencies that result in the agencies having more power and instituting more regulations.

To give a good example, when the EPA lost the 2007 case of Massachusetts vs. EPA (that was the one that said the EPA could regulate greenhouse gas emissions), employees at EPA opened champagne to celebrate their “loss” at the Supreme Court. Much of the time these legal actions never actually make it very far in court, because the agency will “settle” with the plaintiffs through a consent decree, which means in practice that the agency conveniently consents to having more power. It is called “sue and settle,” but I call this “crony administration.” Much of the time these faux lawsuits are filed with the active participation of the agency, making a mockery of the rule of law.

This corrupt racket has been going on for 30 years or more, and neither of the previous Bush administrations did anything to stop it. Last week EPA administrator Scott Pruitt said the EPA would end the practice. "

It's good they are ending this practice, but it's kinda disturbing it has been going on for 30 years or more.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007),[1] is a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants.

Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to set emission standards for "any air pollutant" from motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines "which in his judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."

In 2003, the EPA made two determinations:[2]

The EPA lacked authority under the CAA to regulate carbon dioxide and other GHGs for climate change purposes.
Even if the EPA did have such authority, it would decline to set GHG emissions standards for vehicles.

Why would the EPA celebrate a court order undermining their decision not to regulate?

If the EPA lacked authority, why is the court order valid? Were the EPA's lawyers wrong? Or can the courts effectively give authority where none existed before, and only do so under a lawsuit?

Good case for the courts having far too much power, if the second..

I suppose there's a third option: Covering their ass.

Do nothing, and let the courts decide what they can do, instead of acting first and suffering consequences later.

It's all just very shady and the part where it says "30 years or more" in terms of how long this was going on is alarming. I's quite possible it was going on for far longer than a few decades.

It is sort of weird to see a group come out and say "We're going to stop being shady".

Originally posted by Surtur

It is sort of weird to see a group come out and say "We're going to stop being shady".

That will change once the Democrats get back into full power .

How come we aren't given any actual evidence for the belief that "the epa collaborated with outside parties"?

Why is your favorite source to cite a blog?

Agendas are life for some. Come at me bro.