Comments by "pplr1" (@pplr1) on "Supreme Court rules on EPA's "good neighbor" policy, Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan" video.

  1. This is worrying about trying to hinder the EPA. The rightwingers on the Supreme Court have been pro-polluter for a long time and some of them-like Clarence Thomas-have been getting "gifts" like free vacations that would be expensive for most people from people connected to coal and oil companies. So there is reason to ask about corruption as well as ignoring long established legal practice.
    8
  2. "where is the opinion like they are paid?" Clarence Thomas is probably the biggest example but there has been reporting of expensive "gifts" being given to SCOTUS members for years. Many people would be within reason to ask if that is bribery. Though requiring SCOTUS members to go through rightwing political litmus tests isn't exactly all that encouraging anyway.
    4
  3. Yeah, but Koch has held many parties. At least some of which a rightwing political activist that also happens to be on the Supreme Court attended.
    3
  4. This message was brought to you by a bot created by a firm Exxon subcontracted to do PR for itself.
    3
  5. They did. The Clean Air Act involved trying to make the air cleaner. The Agency that is supposed to do that has being doing its job in the years since. This is about trying to undercut it doing its job.
    3
  6. It comes from US History. Believe it or not pollution became a problem that many people supported the idea of government doing something about it and some politicians way back were elected on the notion they would.
    2
  7. "And then the next administration with new 'experts' can reinterpret it. Rinse and repeat. That's not how it is supposed to work." This is confusing actual experts with political appointees. The actual experts are supposed to stay with an agency since they have training and experience. The political lackeys come and go at the top but they are not the ones doing the actual research nor should they be.
    2
  8. "They control policy and the aforementioned 'experts'. So no confusion. Change of administration, change of policy, reinterpretation of the law." And what happens when they start swapping out experts for political lackeys? Then you have a situation where people may not understand the science or, worse, will lie about what it says.
    2
  9. Lets do that after every member of the Supreme Court lives up not to being an activist and also can prove they didn't take large amounts of pricy "gifts" that can amount to bribes.
    2
  10. "Shouldn't states reconcile on their own?" Sometimes States need a place to go when at least 1 State refuses to reconcile. Guess what level of government gets involved then.
    2
  11. "All three letter agencies that don't follow the letter of the law should be abolished." Those agencies were created by the law. They were created to enforce and follow the law. Some people who are lying about following the Constitution now are trying to wiggle themselves and their polluting buddies out of having to do that.
    1
  12. No, sadly they don't. Instead they would rather pay back polluters and ignore both the US Constitution (if they can find a way to) and legal tradition.
    1
  13. So is this your account that you post on whenever you aren't busy accepting bribes and laughing at how you got your current job through tokenism?
    1
  14. "donate a few extra million to cancer research" They could. Yet that doesn't undo the pollution they are responsible for nor engaging in what could be described as corruption within the US government.
    1
  15.  @T.R.R.Jolkien  My comment does not but if I am an activist is that what qualifies me for the Supreme Court. Seems political litmus testing is a qualifier to get on that court these days.
    1
  16.  @T.R.R.Jolkien  Under this article so far, probably. This is a rightwing activist move by individuals on the Supreme Court. Is being a political activist what now qualifies someone to be on the US Supreme Court?
    1
  17. Actual citizens are losing here. The winners are polluting companies that are paperwork citizens (what is referred to as a "legal fiction").
    1
  18. Supposed "little guy" being execs of polluting companies?
    1