the Bush-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts, who stands to receive the usual barrage of opprobrium from the wingers:
http://yellowhammernews.com/po...NmJkN2UxYzgifQ%3D%3D
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Roberts is considered a fence sitter -- leaning one way, or another. Just another example of why SCOTUS must not be a legislative body, but a judicial one.
EPA's regulations would cost $10 billion for a small pay back.
"According to industry estimates, the regulations would have imposed annual costs of $9.6 billion to achieve health benefits amounting to between $4 and $6 million, according to the Supreme Court majority opinion, aut****d by Justice Antonin Scalia. The EPA called this an unfair comparison, stating that the regulations would save 11,000 lives per year, and if the impact of all the hazardous pollutants were considered, the EPA claimed the regulations would translate into health benefits totaling between $37 and $90 billion per year. "
http://www.oilandgas360.com/su...for-epa-regulations/
As to the 11,000 lives and health benefits savings, EPA has made the same type argument, but never proved the results. Many times, EPA won't release the scientific studies. At present, one wonders if they use scientists or a mage and alchemist.
dire, EPA, like other federal agencies, will and does release its studies consistent with the Freedom of Information Act(FOIA) provisions that do not require such information to be released while the information is being developed as a part of the agency's predecisional activity within an ongoing rule making exercise. After publication of the rules, the agency is obliged to release such studies, provided no other exceptions to the FOIA are applicable (e.g. national security concerns), but that situation is so rare as hardly to even exist. If you know of instances outside that criterion where the agency has refused to release studies, then cite them and we can go on from there.
As to estimates of the cost of regulations, you can expect "industry" estimates to be on the high side, sometimes on the VERY high side, since their objective is to kill or weaken regulations that impose limits on their operations.
The EPA is a joke.
It is your shabby, puerile, knee-jerky, ignorant and unexplicated critique that is the JOKE.
Contendahh posted:dire, EPA, like other federal agencies, will and does release its studies consistent with the Freedom of Information Act(FOIA) provisions that do not require such information to be released while the information is being developed as a part of the agency's predecisional activity within an ongoing rule making exercise. After publication of the rules, the agency is obliged to release such studies, provided no other exceptions to the FOIA are applicable (e.g. national security concerns), but that situation is so rare as hardly to even exist. If you know of instances outside that criterion where the agency has refused to release studies, then cite them and we can go on from there.
As to estimates of the cost of regulations, you can expect "industry" estimates to be on the high side, sometimes on the VERY high side, since their objective is to kill or weaken regulations that impose limits on their operations.
Full reports are required to be released before the period the public has to review a proposed regulation. That has, in many cases, not only not been done, but not been done at all. Plus, no after action reports made as to whether the benefits projected occurred. When d the EPA receive authority to classify federal information? They had confidential authority, but that was withdrawn.
Contendahh posted:It is your shabby, puerile, knee-jerky, ignorant and unexplicated critique that is the JOKE.
Why are you such a hateful, miserable, old s*** that can't post decently to people? You can't just respond, you have to vomit bile all over your posts. You're the joke, and you ARE deranged.