Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-28-2008, 05:21 AM
D. Scarlatti's Avatar
D. Scarlatti D. Scarlatti is offline
Babby Police
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XMMMDLVIII
Images: 3
Default "Brazen misrepresentations"

This is moved from this thread: Global warming for dummies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti
Quote:
Originally Posted by yguy
SCOTUS' decision to mandate that CO2 be treated as a pollutant ...
SCOTUS did no such thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti
SCOTUS did not "mandate that CO2 be treated as a pollutant." The questions presented arose after the EPA refused to treat greenhouse gases as falling within the statutory purview and SCOTUS determined that the EPA's reasons for doing so were deficient:
In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, … or otherwise not in accordance with law.” We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In other words, should the EPA devise a more compelling rationale as to why greenhouse gases should not be within the statutory purview, then such a course of action would be "consistent with this opinion."

Either way, there is no "mandate" as you so ridiculously put it. ... This was a case primarily of Article III standing and statutory construction.
Above is pretty much the sum total of my remarks on a U.S. Supreme Court decision called Massachusetts v. EPA.

Majority opinion

Roberts, C.J., dissenting

Scalia, J., dissenting

A not-so-lovable troll had this to say:

Quote:
Originally Posted by yguy
your brazen misrepresentations of Mass v EPA
I would like him to prove that claim. It should be a simple matter.
__________________
My dwarves will refudiate.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-28-2008, 05:44 AM
Naru's Avatar
Naru Naru is offline
Strabismic Ungulate
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: college
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCMXXXVII
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

Uh-oh, if yguy doesn't reply seriously, it will seriously ruin his credibility, which he values so highly.
__________________
:cookiemonster:
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-28-2008, 05:47 AM
D. Scarlatti's Avatar
D. Scarlatti D. Scarlatti is offline
Babby Police
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XMMMDLVIII
Images: 3
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

Never mind. yguy has already admitted to the pathetic futility of his lies.
As I said, I already have [proven your brazen misrepresentations of Mass v EPA]. I would nevertheless attempt to clarify were it not for your nearly unbroken record of dishonesty. Things being what they are, such a request will have to come from elsewhere for me to spend time on it.
Needless to say, yguy has proven no such thing, not even close.

yguy is a lying weasel, in case anybody was still wondering.

Feel free to bump this thread anytime as a useful reminder.
__________________
My dwarves will refudiate.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-28-2008, 05:53 AM
Naru's Avatar
Naru Naru is offline
Strabismic Ungulate
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: college
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCMXXXVII
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

Can I add to the lying weasel list?
__________________
:cookiemonster:
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-28-2008, 05:54 AM
yguy yguy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: VCXII
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

Quote:
Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti View Post
Feel free to bump this thread anytime as a useful reminder.
Better yet, if you're not Scarface, challenge me on the pertinent facts.

I double dog dare ya. :)
__________________
"If you had a brain, what would you do with it?"

~ Dorothy ~
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-28-2008, 05:55 AM
Naru's Avatar
Naru Naru is offline
Strabismic Ungulate
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: college
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCMXXXVII
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

Umm...okay.
__________________
:cookiemonster:
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-28-2008, 05:57 AM
D. Scarlatti's Avatar
D. Scarlatti D. Scarlatti is offline
Babby Police
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XMMMDLVIII
Images: 3
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

Sorry, but shifting the goalposts won't mask your lies.

Everybody can see them now.
__________________
My dwarves will refudiate.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-28-2008, 07:47 AM
Stormlight's Avatar
Stormlight Stormlight is offline
Not a relevant party
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Luxembourg
Gender: Male
Posts: XLMDCCLXVI
Images: 92
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

Stop taunting the little guy! He's scared enough already.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-28-2008, 05:39 PM
Crumb's Avatar
Crumb Crumb is offline
Cmurb!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cascadia
Gender: Male
Posts: LVMMMDCCXX
Blog Entries: 22
Images: 355
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

Just out of curiosity yguy, how did DS misrepresent Massachusetts v. EPA? :chin:
__________________
:joecool2: :cascadia: :ROR: :portland: :joecool2:
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-28-2008, 06:04 PM
D. Scarlatti's Avatar
D. Scarlatti D. Scarlatti is offline
Babby Police
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XMMMDLVIII
Images: 3
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

For one thing, ytroll doesn't understand what we call the case's procedural posture. Nor does he appear to comprehend the nature of the questions the Court was petitioned to address. I doubt I'd hold those misunderstandings against anyone else.

The Mat Staver fanboy (whose name escapes me) that used to hang around here, maybe.
__________________
My dwarves will refudiate.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-28-2008, 06:24 PM
Uthgar the Brazen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"


:chirp:
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-28-2008, 07:38 PM
yguy yguy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: VCXII
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumb View Post
Just out of curiosity yguy, how did DS misrepresent Massachusetts v. EPA? :chin:
"SCOTUS did no such thing."

You'll find my reasoning in the page linked to in the OP. I don't know why an honest inquirer would find it unclear, but any such person is welcome to tell me how I'm wrong about any of it.
__________________
"If you had a brain, what would you do with it?"

~ Dorothy ~
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-28-2008, 10:34 PM
Crumb's Avatar
Crumb Crumb is offline
Cmurb!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cascadia
Gender: Male
Posts: LVMMMDCCXX
Blog Entries: 22
Images: 355
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

Well one thing this honest inquirer is having trouble figuring out is where the SCOTUS says that CO2 must be treated as a pollutant, can you quote that for me?
__________________
:joecool2: :cascadia: :ROR: :portland: :joecool2:
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-28-2008, 10:35 PM
D. Scarlatti's Avatar
D. Scarlatti D. Scarlatti is offline
Babby Police
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XMMMDLVIII
Images: 3
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

Nice try, but yguy-reasoning (such as it is) is no substitute for that of the Court.

In any event, the question here isn't whether yguy misrepresented the opinion, it's whether I did.

yguy, as a discrete and insular unit of matter, can dribble his uninformed diarrhoea ad infinitum for all I care.
__________________
My dwarves will refudiate.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-28-2008, 10:52 PM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

Quote:
Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti View Post
For one thing, ytroll doesn't understand what we call the case's procedural posture. Nor does he appear to comprehend the nature of the questions the Court was petitioned to address. I doubt I'd hold those misunderstandings against anyone else.

The Mat Staver fanboy (whose name escapes me) that used to hang around here, maybe.
Lion's Den, of blessed memory. Oh why must the good die young?
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (02-29-2008), D. Scarlatti (02-28-2008), godfry n. glad (02-28-2008)
  #16  
Old 02-28-2008, 11:03 PM
yguy yguy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: VCXII
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumb View Post
Well one thing this honest inquirer is having trouble figuring out is where the SCOTUS says that CO2 must be treated as a pollutant, can you quote that for me?
I already have, but I'll do it again:
3. Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act's capacious definition of "air pollutant," EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. That definition--which includes "any air pollution agent ... , including any physical, chemical, ... substance ... emitted into ... the ambient air ... ," 7602(g) (emphasis added)--embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe. Moreover, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are undoubtedly "physical [and] chemical ... substance[s]."
They go on to overturn the ruling of the DC court which found no such authority.

So I don't see what there is to figure out.
__________________
"If you had a brain, what would you do with it?"

~ Dorothy ~
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-28-2008, 11:08 PM
D. Scarlatti's Avatar
D. Scarlatti D. Scarlatti is offline
Babby Police
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XMMMDLVIII
Images: 3
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

Outstanding scholarship there, ytroll. That language doesn't even appear in any of the three separate opinions.

May I remind observers that this is the same person accusing me of "brazen misrepresentations" of the caselaw.
__________________
My dwarves will refudiate.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-28-2008, 11:39 PM
godfry n. glad's Avatar
godfry n. glad godfry n. glad is offline
rude, crude, lewd, and unsophisticated
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Puddle City, Cascadia
Gender: Male
Images: 12
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

There's a shipload of ellipses in that...

I was wondering was was missing. Other than context, of course.

Now you state that there is no such language in any of the opinions issued by the court?
__________________
:wcat: :ecat:
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-28-2008, 11:41 PM
godfry n. glad's Avatar
godfry n. glad godfry n. glad is offline
rude, crude, lewd, and unsophisticated
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Puddle City, Cascadia
Gender: Male
Images: 12
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti View Post
The Mat Staver fanboy (whose name escapes me) that used to hang around here, maybe.
Lion's Den, of blessed memory. Oh why must the good die young?

Ah...yes...Lyin' Dan.

I sure do not miss him....*sigh*
__________________
:wcat: :ecat:
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-28-2008, 11:41 PM
D. Scarlatti's Avatar
D. Scarlatti D. Scarlatti is offline
Babby Police
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XMMMDLVIII
Images: 3
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

No. I assume it's from some case syllabus. We don't rely on syllabi, as a rule.

People who do tend to learn not to the hard way. And that is potentially not a pretty sight.
__________________
My dwarves will refudiate.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-29-2008, 12:50 AM
yguy yguy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: VCXII
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

Having posted it once already, I shouldn't have to do it again, but I will, so as to take away any excuse to speculate about the source.
__________________
"If you had a brain, what would you do with it?"

~ Dorothy ~
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-29-2008, 02:10 AM
Clutch Munny's Avatar
Clutch Munny Clutch Munny is offline
Clutchenheimer
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMMLXXXVIII
Images: 1
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

Quote:
Originally Posted by yguy View Post
Having posted it once already, I shouldn't have to do it again, but I will, so as to take away any excuse to speculate about the source.
Clearly mistaken.

Quote:
The scope of the Court's review of the merits of the statutory issues is narrow. Although an agency's refusal to initiate enforcement proceedings is not ordinarily subject to judicial review, Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, there are key differences between nonenforcement and denials of rulemaking petitions that are, as in the present circumstances, expressly authorized. EPA concluded alternatively in its petition denial that it lacked authority under 7521(a)(1) to regulate new vehicle emissions because carbon dioxide is not an "air pollutant" under 7602, and that, even if it possessed authority, it would decline to exercise it because regulation would conflict with other administration priorities. Because the Act expressly permits review of such an action, 7607(b)(1), this Court "may reverse [it if it finds it to be] arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," 7607(d)(9). Pp. 24-25.

3. Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act's capacious definition of "air pollutant," EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. That definition--which includes "any air pollution agent ... , including any physical, chemical, ... substance ... emitted into ... the ambient air ... ," 7602(g) (emphasis added)--embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe. Moreover, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are undoubtedly "physical [and] chemical ... substance[s]." Ibid. EPA's reliance on postenactment congressional actions and deliberations it views as tantamount to a command to refrain from regulating greenhouse gas emissions is unavailing. Even if postenactment legislative history could shed light on the meaning of an otherwise-unambiguous statute, EPA identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA's power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants.
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.

This simply does not say that CO2 is a pollutant. It says that CO2's being a pollutant is consistent with 7602 (as it could hardly fail to be, given the "capacious" definition).
__________________
Your very presence is making me itchy.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-29-2008, 03:05 AM
D. Scarlatti's Avatar
D. Scarlatti D. Scarlatti is offline
Babby Police
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XMMMDLVIII
Images: 3
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

Another way of putting it, and also exactly correct. As I said, a question of statutory construction and (if one especially reads the dissents) Article III standing. "Speculate about the source." Is that some kind of a joke? If we don't rely on one syllabus, that means we don't rely on another. A syllabus is not the law. It's only a (hopefully) reasonably accurate guide.

Truth be told, I wouldn't even rely on an online version of an opinion, and that goes for Lexis and Westlaw as well. When the chips are down, you always verify the hard copy case reporters.
__________________
My dwarves will refudiate.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-29-2008, 03:37 AM
Clutch Munny's Avatar
Clutch Munny Clutch Munny is offline
Clutchenheimer
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMMLXXXVIII
Images: 1
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

I don't know from Article III standing. I just know how to read English, and that particular bit of English is talking about the EPA's "statutory authority" -- viz., its "power" to treat any "physical, chemical... substance" as a pollutant.
__________________
Your very presence is making me itchy.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-29-2008, 03:40 AM
D. Scarlatti's Avatar
D. Scarlatti D. Scarlatti is offline
Babby Police
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XMMMDLVIII
Images: 3
Default Re: "Brazen misrepresentations"

Right. The Article III standing (the "cases or controversies" requirement in the Constitution whereby the Supreme Court exercises jurisdiction -- which is itself another several shelves of material) is a separate, threshold question. Roberts and the other dissenters don't believe that the Court should have even granted the petition to hear the case in the first place, according to which argument they wouldn't have even reached the merits, i.e., the "capacious" nature of the statutory language.

Moreover, this is a very interesting separation of powers case, since it involves legislation passed by Congress, an enforcement agency of the executive branch, and, of course, the judiciary intervening between the interplay of the former two.
__________________
My dwarves will refudiate.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.62175 seconds with 13 queries