Environmental fanatics raise the alarm on one of President Trump's best judicial nominations (interstate, legal)

[Roboteer]

Another classis example of a nominee for Federal judge who actually thinks the Constitution means what it says, about the Const. giving only certain powers to the Fed govt and forbids it all the rest, leaving them for the states to exercise if they want to.

The article mentions the EPA, and whether its powers are even constitutional. And well should they mention it - the EPA is not authorized to the Fed by the Constitution at all. And this judicial nominee, Andrew Oldman for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, sounds ready to rule accordingly, as any Federal court should.

Actually I think that the Fed govt should have the authority to regulate some forms of pollution: Those that flow from state to state, or originate in one state but affect another. So I favor a Constitutional amendment that authorizes the Federal EPA, and limits it to only those forms of pollution, plus a few that also have interstate effect.

The Federal EPA should still be forbidden to regulate whether you can fill in a swamp in your back yard, or regulate whether you can cut down trees on your property to save some rare species of owl or whatever. It's up to the states to regulate things like that which are confined to their own state. Part of the purpose of a written Constitutional amendment is to LIMIT the EPA to only certain functions, and leave the others to the states.

Of course, wild-eyed liberal activists are screaming their heads off, trying to fool people into thinking Oldman wants to destroy the environment, repeal voting rights, and all the other usual lies liberals have told about law-abiding Republicans for at least 40 years. We'll have to sift through all that usual trash when he comes up for confirmation tomorrow.

But enough norml people have had it up to here with those droning liberal whines with the usual absence of any facts to back them up, that Oldman will probably get confirmed anyway, as he should be. As I've said in other threads, one of President trump's most important promises was to appoint judges who would understand and uphold the Constitution, not their own personal desires and wishful thinking of all the wonderful things the Fed govt can do "to help people" - which is not the Fed govt's job at all. By nominating Oldman, he is keeping that promise once again.

------------------------------------------------------

https://www.yahoo.com/news/civil-rig...224742562.html

Civil rights and environmental groups raise the alarm on a key judicial nomination

Michael Walsh, Reporter
Yahoo News•May 16, 2018

Civil rights leaders and environmentalists are calling on the Senate to reject President Trump’s choice of Andrew Oldham for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit when it votes on the nomination Thursday.

During a press call on Wednesday, top brass for national civil rights and environmental advocacy organizations accused Oldham, 39, the top legal adviser to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, of fighting against voting rights, reproductive rights and government efforts to safeguard the environment and the public health. As Abbott’s general counsel, Oldham repeatedly helped the Lone Star State join then-Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt’s lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Tiernan Sittenfeld, the senior vice president of government affairs at the League of Conservation Voters, said Oldham challenged the EPA’s ability to implement the Clean Air Act and advocated overruling the landmark Massachusetts v. EPA decision that directed the agency to limit carbon pollution.

“But it’s not just that. Oldham is so extreme that he doesn’t just disagree with federal protections; he actually questions their constitutionality,” Sittenfeld said. “He said, and I quote, ‘One of the reasons why the administrative state is enraging is not that you disagree with what the EPA does — although I do disagree with a lot of what it does. That’s not the thing that makes it enraging. It’s the illegitimacy of it.’”

When contacted for comment, the Office of the Texas Governor told Yahoo News via email, “Andrew Oldham has an impressive and extensive background, as well as a robust understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law. "

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

The Federal EPA should still be forbidden to regulate whether you can fill in a swamp in your back yard,

Creating wetlands would be encouraged where I live, it creates habitat for specific species and helps provides a buffer against flooding. There is plenty of water for everyone here. The issue is that water has become very scarce in many areas and this crosses state lines. If everyone builds a pond the next thing is the river is dry destroying habitat and the people that depend on that water downstream don't get any.


Not sure what the greatest solution is but you do need cooperation among states that are affected by this.

[crone]

Air and water move. Sometimes across state lines.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by crone

Air and water move. Sometimes across state lines.

A few years back NJ, NY and some other New England states were suing because of the emissions of states like PA. My solution is to pull the plug on electricity exported from PA to NJ and the other states thus reducing emissions in PA and those flowing across the border into them. I would also impose an environmental impact fee for coal or natural gas being exported to those states, double the fee if it's being exported into a state like NY that has it's own resources but has banned extraction. Sound fair?

[TreeBeard]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

A few years back NJ, NY and some other New England states were suing because of the emissions of states like PA. My solution is to pull the plug on electricity exported from PA to NJ and the other states thus reducing emissions in PA and those flowing across the border into them. I would also impose an environmental impact fee for coal or natural gas being exported to those states, double the fee if it's being exported into a state like NY that has it's own resources but has banned extraction. Sound fair?

So, what are you saying one state has the right to poison the residents of another?

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by TreeBeard

So, what are you saying one state has the right to poison the residents of another?

Certainly not, when someone turns the lights on in NY or NJ the state of PA has played a very big role in turning that light on whether it's the direct exportation of electricity or the exportation of the resources to power their own plants. In either case the residents of PA are bearing the burden of the environmental consequences caused by their consumption of energy.

My solution to this is to impose an environmental impact fee on any electricity or natural resources being exported to those states. In the case of NY that has banned fracking in their state we'll double it because they do not require the resources extracted from PA.

What is not fair about that?

[TreeBeard]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Certainly not, when someone turns the lights on in NY or NJ the state of PA has played a very big role in turning that light on whether it's the direct exportation of electricity or the exportation of the resources to power their own plants. In either case the residents of PA are bearing the burden of the environmental consequences caused by their consumption of energy.

My solution to this is to impose an environmental impact fee on any electricity or natural resources being exported to those states. In the case of NY that has banned fracking in their state we'll double it because they do not require the resources extracted from PA.

What is not fair about that?

So, are you now saying New York residents must stop protecting their environment and wreck their own environment because Pennsylvania has opted to enact weak environmental laws that do not adequately protect their residents?

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by TreeBeard

So, are you now saying New York residents must stop protecting their environment and wreck their own environment because Pennsylvania has opted to enact weak environmental laws that do not adequately protect their residents?

You would propose that PA should pull the plug on electricity being exported to those states, close the valve providing them with natural gas and halt the trains of coal which would prevent environmental damage? I have no problem with such a proposal.

[crone]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

A few years back NJ, NY and some other New England states were suing because of the emissions of states like PA. My solution is to pull the plug on electricity exported from PA to NJ and the other states thus reducing emissions in PA and those flowing across the border into them. I would also impose an environmental impact fee for coal or natural gas being exported to those states, double the fee if it's being exported into a state like NY that has it's own resources but has banned extraction. Sound fair?

Works for me. I live in a state that has to purchase power from another state. Then I turn around and sue them for polluting my air?

Sounds like somebody is biting the hand that feeds them to me.

[Roboteer]

Originally Posted by crone

Air and water move. Sometimes across state lines.

Which is why I pointed out the need for the Fed govt to sometimes regulate pollution.

But it must be strictly limited to times when one state (or country) is seriously polluting another, and the state being polluted can't do anything about it by enacting state laws.

In George Washington's time there wasn't enough polluting going on (even though there was some pollution even then) to justify the Fed govt stepping in. But now there is.

But one of the purposes of enacting a Constitutional amendment to authorize an EPA, is to limit that EPA. The Federal EPA has only pollution as its concern. The idea of creating a superagency with the power to shut down a housing-construction area in the middle of a state that isn't bothering other states, on grounds that there's a species of minnow that might be harmed, is ludicrous, as well as highly un-American.

If a state wants to preserve the minnow, they can go ahead. And people can decide if they want to stay in a state that does that to half the land in the state, or if they want to move their companies and tax dollars to another state that only does it rarely. Instead of the present situation where they have no place to go in the face of an agency that has virtually unlimited power, controlled only by a huge, unwieldy government thousands of miles away.