tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post7753485169266062658..comments2024-03-25T07:29:08.216-04:00Comments on 2 Political Junkies: The Trib Omits Important Info. AgainMariahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10439330154875628083noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-67424210174922359472012-05-06T19:36:58.816-04:002012-05-06T19:36:58.816-04:00HTTT, you complain about Dayvoe using Media Matter...HTTT, you complain about Dayvoe using Media Matters and then you turn around and link to Reason dot org? Incredible hypocrisy. Repeating exactly what the Koch brothers want you to say, to destroy our democracy. <br /><br />We have no way to evaluate the Sackett's claim based on what you tell us, and in fact since you choose such a biased source, we have reason to think you are concealing something from us.EdHeathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09109361235271107574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-6268162277958746652012-05-04T17:33:34.983-04:002012-05-04T17:33:34.983-04:00I believe the lower courts had ruled against the S...<i>I believe the lower courts had ruled against the Sacketts.</i><br />The lower courts only agreed with the EPA that you "may not challenge the order (in court) until the EPA first seeks judicial enforcement of it."<br /><br /><a href="http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/07/sackett-v-epa-how-one-couples-battle-aga" rel="nofollow">Reason.tv: Sackett v. EPA - How One Couple's Battle Against the Feds Might Protect Your Land</a><br /><i>The EPA refused to offer any documentation or evidence for its position, even after the Sacketts hired their own scientists to refute the wetlands claim. Feeling they had no other choice, they tried to take the EPA to court. Unfortunately, not even this was an option, because the EPA maintained that a compliance order is nothing more than a warning and that they cannot be challenged until they actually enforce the fines, which were racking up by the day.<br /><br />"The only way the Sacketts could get judicial review that way, was by ignoring the compliance order," said Damien Schiff, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which took up the Sacketts' case. "EPA still might just sit on its hands and let the possible fines pile up." </i>Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™https://www.blogger.com/profile/14533575674043719198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-35228001997047521792012-05-04T15:07:34.197-04:002012-05-04T15:07:34.197-04:00Actually, HTTT, as far as I can see, the Sackett d...Actually, HTTT, as far as I can see, <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf" rel="nofollow">the Sackett decision</a> says these people can petition the courts when the EPA hands down an administrative ruling. The Supreme's had no comment on whether the EPA's administrative judgment had merit, and I believe the lower courts had ruled against the Sacketts. But you should distort the facts of the case, otherwise we might stupidly not understand how evil the EPA is. Killing all our jobs just because some whiny poor people choose not to work hard enough to have the money to live out in the exurbs with all the good people of our country. Because those poor people don't get themselves health insurance, they deserve to die painful deaths, since otherwise they are a burden on the rest of us. <br /><br />Oh yeah, and I better say all unions, police, teacher and otherwise, are evil, else you accuse me of defending them. Let's bring back the seven day, 12 hour work day, and put children back to work. After all, they can't afford college anyway, and public schools are just blood sucking leeches, taking hard earned tax money from job creators, giving it to society's lazy parasites who pay no taxes, and brainwashing our kids to vote for Democrats to get even more money from the rich.EdHeathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09109361235271107574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8213262.post-58228577513828640962012-05-04T07:48:19.134-04:002012-05-04T07:48:19.134-04:00Find people who are not compliant with the law, an...<i>Find people who are not compliant with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect there</i><br />Sorry the EPA does not get the benefit of the doubt when they ignore the courts when they say that people are not breaking the law.<br /><a href="http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/21/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against" rel="nofollow">Like in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency</a>Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™https://www.blogger.com/profile/14533575674043719198noreply@blogger.com