"Brazen misrepresentations"

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

The EPA claimed that 7602 or subsequent legislation precluded their considering CO2 a pollutant. The ruling holds that it is within their power to consider CO2 a pollutant, so if they wish to decline to do so in a non-arbitrary and non-discretion-abusing way, it can't be by citing (such alleged grounds in) 7602 or subsequent legislation.

IOW, SCOTUS said they can't refuse to consider it a pollutant under extant law. Bearing in mind that this is a completely novel interpretation of §7602(g), what exactly is the substantive difference between what you said and what I said to begin with?

This simply does not say that CO2 is a pollutant.

Neither did I claim it does.

It says that CO2's being a pollutant is consistent with 7602 (as it could hardly fail to be, given the "capacious" definition).

Indeed...and don't forget water vapor.

[D. Scarlatti]

"The ruling holds that it is within their power to consider CO2 a pollutant ..."

"SCOTUS' decision to mandate that CO2 be treated as a pollutant ..."

"What exactly is the substantive difference?"

I should have known this would be a largely fruitless exercise. If it isn't crystal clear by now exactly who is engaging in "brazen misrepresentations," then I give up.

"Yguy, the more posts I see from you the more I come to see you as a blithering idiot." - a relatively new yet nevertheless remarkably perceptive FF member

[yguy]

I see Dom still hasn't gotten it through his skull that powers granted to government agencies are also responsibilities.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by yguy

...what exactly is the substantive difference between what you said and what I said to begin with?

You're kidding now, right? My dumb IT ass can see the difference.

SCOTUS was asked to rule on whether or not a particular piece of legislation forbid the EPA to treat Co2 as a pollutant. SCOTUS ruled that the law in question does not forbid such treatment.

You claimed that SCOTUS "mandate[d]" that Co2 be treated as a pollutant. Big difference.

If you ask me whether or not the King James Bible states that the moon is not made of green cheese and I say no, am I making the affirmative claim that the moon actually is made of green cheese?

Edited to correct a positive/negative confusion that reversed the meaning of my last sentence.

[D. Scarlatti]

More goalpost-shifting, and yet another false assertion. (Not from Adam, who also better understands the decision.)

Do you ever stop lying and weaseling, yguy? It appears that you do -- and will -- not.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Adam

You're kidding now, right? My dumb IT ass can see the difference.

SCOTUS was asked to rule on whether or not a particular piece of legislation forbid the EPA to treat Co2 as a pollutant. SCOTUS ruled that the law in question does not forbid such treatment.

IOW, the ruling is properly interpreted to the effect that EPA can regulate CO2 as a pollutant if it wants to, but it doesn't have to if it doesn't want to.

Right?

[D. Scarlatti]

Wrong. And your ridiculous and transparent attempt at oversimplification is hilariously grotesque.

But I'm nearly certain you'll continue trying vainly to weasel your slippery way toward "mandate" somehow.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Wrong. And your ridiculous and transparent attempt at oversimplification is hilariously grotesque.

IOW, bacon. Right?

[D. Scarlatti]

Bacon is slippery, so, yes.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by yguy

I see Dom still hasn't gotten it through his skull that powers granted to government agencies are also responsibilities.

Not according to you.

According to you the executive ignoring directives from the supreme court is constitutional...right? So, at least in that incident, there was no responsibility whatsoever on the part of the executive. You seemed to be quite comfortable with that. Now you're saying that powers have responsibilities? When you don't believe it yourself?

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Adam

If you ask me whether or not the King James Bible states that the moon is not made of green cheese and I say no, am I making the affirmative claim that the moon actually is made of green cheese?

The comparison doesn't work, because again, the exercise of its statutory authority by an agency is not an option. It may no more refuse to do so than it may presume to wield power it doesn't have.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Not according to you.

According to you the executive ignoring directives from the supreme court is constitutional...right?

If said directives happen to be unconstitutional, of course. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

So, at least in that incident, there was no responsibility whatsoever on the part of the executive.

Quite the contrary, since the President swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the directives of SCOTUS.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by yguy

[T]he exercise of its statutory authority by an agency is not an option. It may no more refuse to do so than it may presume to wield power it doesn't have.

Somewhere in this heap of near-gibberish is perhaps the kernel of yguy's nascent understanding of Massachusetts v. EPA.

Don't anyone tell me I'm not a decidedly charitable fellow.