Cougardan 20 hours ago
Cougardan 20 hours ago
+4 Votes
Join the site if you need to....the next time anyone here says regulations are not a problem....begin the discussion with this link every time.
snarking.slug 20 hours ago
+1 Vote
Name a reasonable regulation. Name a regulation you'd fight to keep.
TheScott 19 hours ago
+4 Votes
Any regulation that prevents fraud, conflict of interest, collusion, and monopoly.... at some point the users of goods and services need to start taking responsibility of their own actions... then if the have been lied to, cheated or ripped off... take it to court.....
rick0427 14 hours ago
Like Dodd -Frank is designed to do Scott. Prevent Fraud, conflict of interest, collusion, and monopoly. Would you fight for that one.
LiveStrongest 12 hours ago
+2 Votes
If that's all that Dodd-Frank did, who could complain?
But Dodd-Frank also restricts legitimate growth. Imposes a ponderous burden to businesses for normal operations and is unnecessarily restricting job growth and investment. The negatives will FAR out weighing the positives.
But Dodd-Frank also restricts legitimate growth. Imposes a ponderous burden to businesses for normal operations and is unnecessarily restricting job growth and investment. The negatives will FAR out weighing the positives.
snarking.slug 20 hours ago
+1 Vote
Name a reasonable regulation. Name a regulation you'd fight to keep.
snarking.slug 19 hours ago
Ok. that's a start.
If a company pollutes a river and that pollution causes property damage to many, shouldn't there be a regulation that prevents the pollution (there is a risk to the damaged if the polluting entity declare BK after losing law suits. The regulation is proactive).
Protecting the commons doesn't fit into your description.
If a company pollutes a river and that pollution causes property damage to many, shouldn't there be a regulation that prevents the pollution (there is a risk to the damaged if the polluting entity declare BK after losing law suits. The regulation is proactive).
Protecting the commons doesn't fit into your description.
louman 18 hours ago
+4 Votes
Supreme Court Rules Against EPA in Idaho Wetlands Case
Douglas Gibbs
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution indicates that State land belongs to the States, and if the federal government is to have any control over State land by taking possession, or otherwise, the land must be purchased by the federal government, and the State legislature must give its permission.
The land is near a scenic lake, and when they decided to build in 2007, the EPA ordered a halt to the project, saying the Clean Water Act requires that wetlands not be disturbed without a permit.
This ruling, however, only gives the Idaho couple the right to challenge the EPA head-on in court. However, in a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito noted that the law allowing EPA to demand compliance is overly broad.
Still the people cannot build on their dry land. So they go back to court yet again.
5 years and countingless
Douglas Gibbs
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution indicates that State land belongs to the States, and if the federal government is to have any control over State land by taking possession, or otherwise, the land must be purchased by the federal government, and the State legislature must give its permission.
The land is near a scenic lake, and when they decided to build in 2007, the EPA ordered a halt to the project, saying the Clean Water Act requires that wetlands not be disturbed without a permit.
This ruling, however, only gives the Idaho couple the right to challenge the EPA head-on in court. However, in a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito noted that the law allowing EPA to demand compliance is overly broad.
Still the people cannot build on their dry land. So they go back to court yet again.
5 years and countingless
rick0427 1 hour ago
Bellum 20 hours ago
Cougardan -
One data point, presented by lay person, TV personalities, neither a correlation makes nor a proper conclusion proved.
Identify one law that is not 'over the top regulation' for someone. (I can name gazillions.)
The point is: Regulations regulate. Ergo, someone is constrained. That someone is constrained does not make the law 'over the top'.
'Over the top' would be, perhaps, if society as a whole is constrained. As to the example proffered, hardly.
Cheers.
One data point, presented by lay person, TV personalities, neither a correlation makes nor a proper conclusion proved.
Identify one law that is not 'over the top regulation' for someone. (I can name gazillions.)
The point is: Regulations regulate. Ergo, someone is constrained. That someone is constrained does not make the law 'over the top'.
'Over the top' would be, perhaps, if society as a whole is constrained. As to the example proffered, hardly.
Cheers.
TheScott 19 hours ago
+5 Votes
So do totalitarian governments. Governments job is to enforce contracts, not create a million rules what people negotiate. At what point does the regulation of peoples behaviour both in their personal life and in business have a negative effect on society it is meant to serve. I can point to a lot of regulations, made ostensibly with good intention, being poorly crafted and researched or ill conceived, that, at the end of the day, either negated some other regulation or had a cumulative knock on effect, which creates more harm than good. Basic laws and regulations with respect to fraud, theft, deception, collusion, conflict of interest and that should just about cover it. As far as the little harms that can happen in life, it is about time people start taking personal responsibility for their actions and their associations. For some reason government and military think that 'preemptive' is the buzzword of the day... enforce law, not regulate thought. less
Bellum 19 hours ago
TheScott -
'So do totalitarian governments' what?
When you say 'Governments (sic) job is to enforce contracts', are you saying, as it appears, that is all 'government' is to do? (I carry on with the anthropomorphism of government, for context purposes. The reality is, in America, you are the government and the government is you.)
Cheers,
'So do totalitarian governments' what?
When you say 'Governments (sic) job is to enforce contracts', are you saying, as it appears, that is all 'government' is to do? (I carry on with the anthropomorphism of government, for context purposes. The reality is, in America, you are the government and the government is you.)
Cheers,
rick0427 14 hours ago
At what point can we expect with due diligence that everyone is going to do the right things all the time in every situation. If that would happen there would be no need for regulations. Regs are here forever Dan because we the greediest people on earth cannot do the right things. Money trumps all we do. It's sad.
Cougardan 13 hours ago
We know Regs are here forever...and there should be regs Rick...leave the gradeschool talk and fluffy talk for writers that like to play pee wee ball....the newsclip makes clear what regs are going overboard...if ya can't comprehend, just exit stage left.
TheScott 18 hours ago
+5 Votes
Cryptic I admit.. My point was that totalitarian governments make regulations that constrain as well and while not all constraint is over the top, their is a limit before they become debilitating to their society.
"......are you saying, as it appears, that is all 'government' is to do? "
Yes, on the enforcement side that is about what I am saying. The government having a base of common sense laws, as I said, should need little more. If someone feels harmed by someone then those laws should suffice. Obviously its not as simple as that but the government has taken on the roll of personal protector and pre-arbitrator of everything with new laws to make sure you don't 'think' about violating the basic ones...
As far as our people and government being the same.. agree to disagree. I will admit that, all things being what they should be, our government would be a true representative of the people..... but for numerous reasons, it is currently far from that. less
"......are you saying, as it appears, that is all 'government' is to do? "
Yes, on the enforcement side that is about what I am saying. The government having a base of common sense laws, as I said, should need little more. If someone feels harmed by someone then those laws should suffice. Obviously its not as simple as that but the government has taken on the roll of personal protector and pre-arbitrator of everything with new laws to make sure you don't 'think' about violating the basic ones...
As far as our people and government being the same.. agree to disagree. I will admit that, all things being what they should be, our government would be a true representative of the people..... but for numerous reasons, it is currently far from that. less
Bellum 17 hours ago
TheScott -
Nicely stated.
With regard to government role, a breach of contract is that, a breach of contract, where the injury is that of and limited to the benefit of the contract. What of the circumstance goes beyond the benefit of the bragin/contract benefit and causes physical injury? Does not government have a role as regards to such events?
To clarify, there are three branches of, inter alia, anglo-american government, executive, legislative, and judicial.
The judiciary has been in the business of sorting out contract and tort issues for a long time. Do you have issues with this practice?
The legislature enters the contract/tort realm occasionally, and, when it does, the result is what I would describe as well-intentioned goofs. Agree/disagree?
The executive tends not to bother with contract/tort, having more important things to do, save for when health and safety are at issue. Do you have issues with Love Canal and Rocky Mountain Flats type interventions?
Cheers, less
Nicely stated.
With regard to government role, a breach of contract is that, a breach of contract, where the injury is that of and limited to the benefit of the contract. What of the circumstance goes beyond the benefit of the bragin/contract benefit and causes physical injury? Does not government have a role as regards to such events?
To clarify, there are three branches of, inter alia, anglo-american government, executive, legislative, and judicial.
The judiciary has been in the business of sorting out contract and tort issues for a long time. Do you have issues with this practice?
The legislature enters the contract/tort realm occasionally, and, when it does, the result is what I would describe as well-intentioned goofs. Agree/disagree?
The executive tends not to bother with contract/tort, having more important things to do, save for when health and safety are at issue. Do you have issues with Love Canal and Rocky Mountain Flats type interventions?
Cheers, less
TheScott 1 hour ago
Bellum - What of the circumstance goes beyond the benefit of the bragin/contract benefit and causes physical injury? Does not government have a role as regards to such events?
We have basic law that covers theft, fraud, negligence and malice. If the product of the contract is defective as to cause injury... the court already has a remedy. Excessive regulation allows a poor company to remain in the market place only through compliance. While protecting a few people, regulations never encourage a superior product as resources must be redirected to compliance. Public opinion and proper tort functions never get a chance to remove an otherwise poor company from the marketplace. Some will say the protecting the unwary is more important and I say that it leads to lethargy in due diligence. For example.... their are very few protected crossings and speed zones for school children in Britain... they learn to look before they cross the street........> less
We have basic law that covers theft, fraud, negligence and malice. If the product of the contract is defective as to cause injury... the court already has a remedy. Excessive regulation allows a poor company to remain in the market place only through compliance. While protecting a few people, regulations never encourage a superior product as resources must be redirected to compliance. Public opinion and proper tort functions never get a chance to remove an otherwise poor company from the marketplace. Some will say the protecting the unwary is more important and I say that it leads to lethargy in due diligence. For example.... their are very few protected crossings and speed zones for school children in Britain... they learn to look before they cross the street........> less
TheScott 1 hour ago
Love Canal is an interesting case and the spawn of yet another federal bureaucracy. Hooker chemical was indeed negligent but had permit to dump in the same place the state of New York and indeed the Federal government by way of the Army had already made a mess. Some of the federal deposits were discards from the Manhattan Project. So instead of suing itself, the federal government created the EPA who now want to regulate CO2 emissions from cows and dust from dirt roads and require farm tractor operators to log usage and have physical exams...
The legislature enters the contract/tort realm occasionally, and, when it does, the result is what I would describe as well-intentioned goofs.
Me too! Someone mentioned that the federal government deals with an average of 70 pieces of legislation a day. Probably about 65 more than they are capable of adequately, intelligently deliberating. As for the president- most departments do vastly more harm than they do good. *well-intentioned goofs*less
The legislature enters the contract/tort realm occasionally, and, when it does, the result is what I would describe as well-intentioned goofs.
Me too! Someone mentioned that the federal government deals with an average of 70 pieces of legislation a day. Probably about 65 more than they are capable of adequately, intelligently deliberating. As for the president- most departments do vastly more harm than they do good. *well-intentioned goofs*less
Joplin 20 hours ago
+5 Votes
I read that tirade from the mortgage broker. I can understand why he's upset. That is some major BS the government pulled. They just got to be sure they get every crumb of their piece of the pie.
CrazyMarine 20 hours ago
+4 Votes
Without some government regulation we might all be in unregulated graves now, many here are not old enough to remember leaded gasoline gradually turning toxic or rivers so polluted that they caught on fire, air quality so bad you had to almost where a gas mask etc, etc, now there is one group of individuals that are world champions at crossing Aristotle,s golden mean and turning a virtue into a vice, that group is our American politicians, they pass a regulation that,s beneficial to all they become so full of themselves it,s let,s regulate everything and ever body, this people have never mastered moderation in anything, iin this area I tend to see the point that libertarians make, enough is enough already.
TheScott 19 hours ago
+5 Votes
That's it CM.... the basic law is 'Do No Harm'..... If you cross that line then a common sense law is probably already on the books to defend yourself with. Obviously its not that simple but it really isn't far off from that...... at least to people with some common sense....
Bellum 19 hours ago
TheScott -
How is it you measure the 'do' and 'harm' bits in 'do no harm'?
The private/personal automobile has caused the deaths of more Americans in the last 30 or so years than deaths in all of America's armed conflicts, counting from your 'Revolutionary War'. Could it be that some individuals within America's industrial and political institutions played a no small role in the promotion of private/personal automobile and the demise of public transportation? If so, would those individuals have done a 'do' and caused a 'harm'?
Cheers,
How is it you measure the 'do' and 'harm' bits in 'do no harm'?
The private/personal automobile has caused the deaths of more Americans in the last 30 or so years than deaths in all of America's armed conflicts, counting from your 'Revolutionary War'. Could it be that some individuals within America's industrial and political institutions played a no small role in the promotion of private/personal automobile and the demise of public transportation? If so, would those individuals have done a 'do' and caused a 'harm'?
Cheers,
TheScott 18 hours ago
+5 Votes
Bellum - No inanimate object causes harm.... period. People misuse them, people use them for nefarious purposes but the objects have done no harm. A product poorly designed or a product advertised to operate safely when it doesn't crosses the 'do no harm' line of the manufacture. We have taken away a great deal of personal responsibility in personal conduct. As far as the creators of the auto industry, public transport never would have built America. Much to big and diverse to ever happen... of course now you might think it a good idea to wipe out all of the cities and start over... but that would require a lot of hindsight. Of coarse, as far as I am concerned the political influence in your statement has hampered 'public transport' (using your instance) with laws, subsidies and tax loopholes that interfere in the free market... otherwise fossil fuel and internal combustion engines might not be so in favour.... less
Bellum 17 hours ago
The Scott -
Re the issue of 'inanimate object causes harm', you might want to give some consideration to Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453 (1944).
Does not personal responsibility beg the question of can one be responsible when to be responsible requires knowledge, understanding, insight, and facilities that are not available or unattainable?
Not everyone has a mass spectrometer to validate whether the lettuce they are buying contains, is harboring e coli.
Cheers,
Re the issue of 'inanimate object causes harm', you might want to give some consideration to Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453 (1944).
Does not personal responsibility beg the question of can one be responsible when to be responsible requires knowledge, understanding, insight, and facilities that are not available or unattainable?
Not everyone has a mass spectrometer to validate whether the lettuce they are buying contains, is harboring e coli.
Cheers,
TheScott 1 hour ago
Bellum -coca cola produced a defective bottle.... either their quality control missed a defect or their bottle design was marginal.... The bottle did nothing and Coca Cola was held liable. Was it accidental? Yes, I am sure but because of it, should this company have to comply with a heap of regulations which take away from its ability to produce a superior beverage, just in case another defective bottle enters the supply chain.? Let to many bottles explode, to many negligence suits brought producing negative publicity, coke will cease to be a brand............>
TheScott 1 hour ago
"Does not personal responsibility beg the question of can one be responsible when to be responsible requires knowledge...."
First of all, one has to ask the question.. if you had no reasonable knowledge of the product and its use... why are you buying it? Product specific, proper operation, required maintenance and safety cautions should be provided by the maker. If the manufacture does not produce a product that operates as advertised or neglects reasonable 'specific' safety information.. they are negligent. We don't need onerous regulations that prevent that company from competing. We need a diligent consumer and simple legal recourse.
First of all, one has to ask the question.. if you had no reasonable knowledge of the product and its use... why are you buying it? Product specific, proper operation, required maintenance and safety cautions should be provided by the maker. If the manufacture does not produce a product that operates as advertised or neglects reasonable 'specific' safety information.. they are negligent. We don't need onerous regulations that prevent that company from competing. We need a diligent consumer and simple legal recourse.
louman 18 hours ago
+6 Votes
Some of my favorites:
“There was an EPA regulation that treated milk as if it were a toxic oil. So if milk spilled from a truck, it was subject to the same regulatory treatment as toxic oil,” Jacob Lew, the director of the Office of Management and Budget stated.
Lawmakers are working to block an unprecedented power grab by the Environmental Protection Agency to use the Clean Water Act (CWA) and control land alongside ditches, gullies. These temporary water sources are often created by rain or snowmelt, and would make it harder for private property owners to build in their own backyards.
“Dust” regulation. The EPA is considering a crackdown on farm dust. The EPA proposes to regulate dust as a pollutant. So dust from combines, dusty roads or animals kicking up dust would be regulated.
FDA ban on over-the-counter epinephrine asthma inhalers. The ban puts environmental concerns ahead of concerns for the estimated 3 million asthma sufferers use the inhalers. less
“There was an EPA regulation that treated milk as if it were a toxic oil. So if milk spilled from a truck, it was subject to the same regulatory treatment as toxic oil,” Jacob Lew, the director of the Office of Management and Budget stated.
Lawmakers are working to block an unprecedented power grab by the Environmental Protection Agency to use the Clean Water Act (CWA) and control land alongside ditches, gullies. These temporary water sources are often created by rain or snowmelt, and would make it harder for private property owners to build in their own backyards.
“Dust” regulation. The EPA is considering a crackdown on farm dust. The EPA proposes to regulate dust as a pollutant. So dust from combines, dusty roads or animals kicking up dust would be regulated.
FDA ban on over-the-counter epinephrine asthma inhalers. The ban puts environmental concerns ahead of concerns for the estimated 3 million asthma sufferers use the inhalers. less
TheScott 18 hours ago
+5 Votes
Some people really do believe that the government can solve everything...... its kind of like the legislative version of the tort lawyers axiom here in the UK..... " Where theirs a blame... Theirs a claim"
stndyogrnd 18 hours ago
LOL some people are obsessed with the idea of Government Solving "too much". Its a problem of being obsessed and hysterical with which tool one uses to fix something... when that is not even remotely the problem.....
The problem needs to be identified, with some sort of rational aggreement that there is a problem. Next comes the process of breaking it down into identifying the all the costs both economic and in the way of human suffering that the problem causes. Finnally try and identify the root cause or causes, and then use what ever combinationof tools, Government being one of those, to fix the problem.... Government is a a tool human beings use within the cotext of the society their live in to address complex ... more
The problem needs to be identified, with some sort of rational aggreement that there is a problem. Next comes the process of breaking it down into identifying the all the costs both economic and in the way of human suffering that the problem causes. Finnally try and identify the root cause or causes, and then use what ever combinationof tools, Government being one of those, to fix the problem.... Government is a a tool human beings use within the cotext of the society their live in to address complex ... more
RicFlair 18 hours ago
+4 Votes
Kenny baby, government is the only tool the left knows and when your only tool is a hammer, then everything and everybody starts looking like a nail pal!
stndyogrnd 18 hours ago
LOL the bigoted men of the Right love to use the tool of hysteria and hyperbole to make sweeping generalities about their mythical version of the "left"
Bellum 17 hours ago
RicFlair -
I don't know about the 'left' bit, as 'left' is a relative term, where you use as though 'left' is an absolute.
Notwithstanding, as regards government being the only tool in the tool box, I say there is one other, far more powerful tool than government that is available.
That tool is a tort attorney, litigation, and a jury of common folk citizens. That tool is so powerful that much energy has been and is being expended to eliminate it.
Want to get government out of the regulation business? Get out, if you have the testicular fortitude, to get out of the tort reform business.
Cheers,
I don't know about the 'left' bit, as 'left' is a relative term, where you use as though 'left' is an absolute.
Notwithstanding, as regards government being the only tool in the tool box, I say there is one other, far more powerful tool than government that is available.
That tool is a tort attorney, litigation, and a jury of common folk citizens. That tool is so powerful that much energy has been and is being expended to eliminate it.
Want to get government out of the regulation business? Get out, if you have the testicular fortitude, to get out of the tort reform business.
Cheers,
louman 16 hours ago
+2 Votes
Bellum,
This action started in 2007 and they finally won the right to see the EPA in court. Litigation isn't the answer to over regulation.
Supreme Court Rules Against EPA in Idaho Wetlands Case
Douglas Gibbs
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution indicates that State land belongs to the States, and if the federal government is to have any control over State land by taking possession, or otherwise, the land must be purchased by the federal government, and the State legislature must give its permission.
The land is near a scenic lake, and when they decided to build in 2007, the EPA ordered a halt to the project, saying the Clean Water Act requires that wetlands not be disturbed without a permit.
This ruling, however, only gives the Idaho couple the right to challenge the EPA head-on in court. less
This action started in 2007 and they finally won the right to see the EPA in court. Litigation isn't the answer to over regulation.
Supreme Court Rules Against EPA in Idaho Wetlands Case
Douglas Gibbs
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution indicates that State land belongs to the States, and if the federal government is to have any control over State land by taking possession, or otherwise, the land must be purchased by the federal government, and the State legislature must give its permission.
The land is near a scenic lake, and when they decided to build in 2007, the EPA ordered a halt to the project, saying the Clean Water Act requires that wetlands not be disturbed without a permit.
This ruling, however, only gives the Idaho couple the right to challenge the EPA head-on in court. less
Bellum 16 hours ago
louman -
Didn't say, and don't suggest, litigation is an answer to over-regulation. Besides, there are no answers.
Litigation is an alternative to government regulation.
Moreover, if you're a capitalistic, you must applaud free-market regulation, which is what tort attorneys, with citizen juries, do.
If you're tort reform, you're a socialist.
Isn't funny how the pro-business conservatives are really socialists, or disengenuous?
The downside to regulation through tort actions is that it is after the fact. Regulation strives to act before the fact. If it is your son or daughter that is the statistic, you'll probably have wanted regulation.
Cheers,
Didn't say, and don't suggest, litigation is an answer to over-regulation. Besides, there are no answers.
Litigation is an alternative to government regulation.
Moreover, if you're a capitalistic, you must applaud free-market regulation, which is what tort attorneys, with citizen juries, do.
If you're tort reform, you're a socialist.
Isn't funny how the pro-business conservatives are really socialists, or disengenuous?
The downside to regulation through tort actions is that it is after the fact. Regulation strives to act before the fact. If it is your son or daughter that is the statistic, you'll probably have wanted regulation.
Cheers,
louman 13 hours ago
+2 Votes
Bellum, in the article the people had to go to the Supreme Court just to take the EPA to court as the EPA has no appeals process. Litigation was not an option until the Supreme ruled in their favor.
Isn't funny how the pro-business conservatives are really socialists, or disengenuous?
Isn't it even funnier you really don't understand they system in place. i.e. no appeals process for a decision or new regulations for a government department.
Isn't funny how the pro-business conservatives are really socialists, or disengenuous?
Isn't it even funnier you really don't understand they system in place. i.e. no appeals process for a decision or new regulations for a government department.
gottaloveit 18 hours ago
+4 Votes
Perhaps because a lot on the left have turned into the Lenin Party.
Maxyasgur 17 hours ago
"Perhaps because a lot on the left have turned into the Lenin Party."
A depth, as always, that only you can bring to the conversation.
A depth, as always, that only you can bring to the conversation.
CrazyMarine 17 hours ago
+1 Vote
I am not now or ever have been a member of the Lenin Party, I did belong to the Gay and Lesbian Nazies for a summer, but only so I could play on their softball team, they booted me out when the discovered I was neither gay, a lesbian or a Nazi, shame, I was knocking the cover off the ball.
TheScott 13 minutes ago
Bellum - Their is a point at which tort lawyers and ambulance chasers become an obstruction to a good legal system. Firstly, we are not talking about reasonable tort litigation in place of regulation. We are talking about liabilities on top of regulations. We are talking about a store being put out of business by a customer who steps on a banana peel, discarded my another customer seconds earlier. We have absolved the customer of watching were they put their dammmm feet and create punitive damages far in excess of the reality. My car rolled into the back of another car four years ago and both occupants claimed whiplash. Major BS and the car damage proved it but rather than fight it, the insurance company paid because good justice is just to dammmned expensive. Its not 'capitalist' to expect that people will try to sue you as a method of income or a lawyer who makes a living built around pumped and contrived damages. less
Maxyasgur 17 hours ago
To your point several posts up Lou, you can always find a case where an extreme lack of common sense exists. And yet, as gotta down here so eloquently shows, you can make ridiculous sweeps and brand any call for regulation a desire for communism. At one time, you could not borrow 10X's an income you don't have to buy a house. Deregulation made that happen. At any point of constraint, you can say, "I'M BEING CONSTRAINED". But at such points, it can also be asked if such constraint benefits or harms others. If we have a prevailing attitude that includes stewardship and compromise, I believe you can create decent regulation. In our current environment, you can have perhaps too much regulation under Democrats and too little under Republicans. And of course, this jerks back and forth constantly. less
louman 13 hours ago
+1 Vote
Max,
As pointed out in the Supreme Court decision there was no appeals process in place for the people to take their complaint. Only a 75K fine per day if they proceeded with building on their land.
It's not about the extreme but the lack of appeals in regulation, decision levied by a government agency against an individual. I guess I identify with them after doing battle with the EPA.
The score so far, EPA 1, Louman1. Getting ready for round 3. We'll see how I fare on the next round. When I was younger I was up for the challenge, now not so much.
As pointed out in the Supreme Court decision there was no appeals process in place for the people to take their complaint. Only a 75K fine per day if they proceeded with building on their land.
It's not about the extreme but the lack of appeals in regulation, decision levied by a government agency against an individual. I guess I identify with them after doing battle with the EPA.
The score so far, EPA 1, Louman1. Getting ready for round 3. We'll see how I fare on the next round. When I was younger I was up for the challenge, now not so much.
Cougardan 13 hours ago
+1 Vote
Nice direction of debate and thoughts....getting to stewardship and compromise will take rotating names out every cycle til we get honest and decent representation....it's all we got.
No comments:
Post a Comment