danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

( Bush delaying review of emissions under the Clean Air Act would have been more of a concern because you're talking about the Executive Branch not complying with a law it doesn't like). Minor delays in implementing a complex reform do not equal a power grab.

Is a 2-year delay "minor?" If so, why?

The Bush delay to the Clean Air Act review of emissions was a 5-year one.

Was the Clean Air Act review delayed purely for political reasons--in other words, was it done to help in an election? Would any clear-thinking person even try to claim the latest ACA delay is not a political maneuver?

Kennedy is a conservative?

That's not what the article says - it describes him as a likely swing vote.

the article you quoted continues....

Again, from the article:

Such a ruling from the court's conservative wing wouldn't affect an ongoing effort by the Obama administration to regulate the sources of global warming, but it would eliminate one method of doing so.

So, if he's part of "Such a ruling from the court's conservative wing . . ."

They seem to treat him both as a conservative and a swing vote.

Though the case focuses on what Verrilli called "an urgent environmental problem ... one that gets worse with the passage of time," the court's ruling is likely to have only limited impact. That's because the government has other ways of regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources."

So, umm.. the USSC may rule that a particular rule was wrong (oddly, in that it let loads of companies not need to have a permit), but it won't actually affect the bulk of the law.

You miss the point. The EPA decided the law would become absurd if applied uniformly AFTER the USSC permitted it to add carbon to the list of items it regulates. The Administration determined Congress was not willing to rewrite the Clean Air Act to make sense of carbon within its framework, so the EPA independently set the standards, ignoring the CAA.

The question is whether the EPA has that much authority. This nicely summarizes the situation:

Overall, the Court seemed largely to be awaiting the turn of the U.S. Solicitor General at the lectern. While he drew obvious and continuing support from the Court’s more liberal Justices, he was challenged at times aggressively by Justice Scalia. But it was Justice Alito who used the most accusing descriptions of how the EPA had interpreted its power to regulate greenhouse gases, saying at one point that, in the entire history of environmental regulation, no agency had given itself the authority to simply edit the explicit language that Congress had written into the law.

Essentially, can the Executive Branch rewrite legislation to change explicit language in the law without going back to Congress? If so, any law Congress passes on any topic is a virtual free pass to any Administration to do whatever it likes or does not like with regard to that topic.

Doctor Fate wrote:Was the Clean Air Act review delayed purely for political reasons--in other words, was it done to help in an election? Would any clear-thinking person even try to claim the latest ACA delay is not a political maneuver?

It was delayed from 2003 to 2008. Potentially that was to avoid making a decision before the 2004 election or the 2006 midterms.

Not sure that the 'reason' is you main objection - or should be - it's that laws were delayed, surely?

So, if he's part of "Such a ruling from the court's conservative wing . . ."

They seem to treat him both as a conservative and a swing vote.

I think it's clear that the 'conservative wing' is a relative term, and also that even if Kennedy votes with them as a swing voter that doesn't mean he is a part of it, per se. Well, that's clear to me, but English is my first language, so...

Essentially, can the Executive Branch rewrite legislation to change explicit language in the law without going back to Congress? If so, any law Congress passes on any topic is a virtual free pass to any Administration to do whatever it likes or does not like with regard to that topic.

There are ways that an Executive can interpret legislation, yes. It's not a blank cheque, which is what you are trying to make my position out to be. But also, there is not the hard and fast rule that you would like there to be: The law allows the Executive to administer the law by setting rules and processes up. Congress does not prescribe all of those to the letter, it's got enough to do already. If the rules are outside the law, then it will get picked up, but if they are inside the law (and often they are), then the courts will allow it.

Also, the courts can strike down laws made by Congress, for good reason.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Was the Clean Air Act review delayed purely for political reasons--in other words, was it done to help in an election? Would any clear-thinking person even try to claim the latest ACA delay is not a political maneuver?

It was delayed from 2003 to 2008. Potentially that was to avoid making a decision before the 2004 election or the 2006 midterms.

Yes, yes, I'm sure we all remember the nation's fascination with the delay of this. It drove GWB's popularity way down and was the subject of endless public outcry.

Or not.

Not sure that the 'reason' is you main objection - or should be - it's that laws were delayed, surely?

I'm not sure you've established a reasonable equivalency in the political impact of Bush's delay vs. Obama's delay. Americans don't like the ACA. It is killing some Democrats up for reelection. Please show say 4 or 5 Republican Senators whose careers were potentially saved or elections affected by Bush's decision.

You can't.

So, if he's part of "Such a ruling from the court's conservative wing . . ."

They seem to treat him both as a conservative and a swing vote.

I think it's clear that the 'conservative wing' is a relative term, and also that even if Kennedy votes with them as a swing voter that doesn't mean he is a part of it, per se. Well, that's clear to me, but English is my first language, so...

Really? Your posts read like pure gibberish, so . . . I am surprised you claim English.

There are ways that an Executive can interpret legislation, yes. It's not a blank cheque, which is what you are trying to make my position out to be.

With the ACA, he has made statutory changes--fiddling with dates, numbers, and often for no demonstrable reason--although we know the reason to be partisan politics. That is not within his power.

“My view [is] that the president, has in fact, exceeded his authority in a way that is creating a destabilizing influence in a three branch system,” he said. “I want to emphasize, of course, this problem didn’t begin with President Obama, I was critical of his predecessor President Bush as well, but the rate at which executive power has been concentrated in our system is accelerating. And frankly, I am very alarmed by the implications of that aggregation of power.”

“What also alarms me, however, is that the two other branches appear not just simply passive, but inert in the face of this concentration of authority,” Turley said…

“The fact that I happen to think the president is right on many of these policies does not alter the fact that I believe the means he is doing [it] is wrong, and that this can be a dangerous change in our system,” he said. “And our system is changing in a very fundamental way. And it’s changing without a whimper of regret or opposition.”

Whatever they end up doing about it — and the House GOP, at least, is trying to do something — they’d better do it soon. “I believe that your response has to begin before this president leaves office,” Turley says, not only because allowing these power grabs to calcify as acceptable precedent is dangerous but because he knows that some GOPers will grow more sanguine about executive prerogatives once a Republican is back in the White House. He wants the party that’s out of power now on record in their opposition precisely because they won’t be out of power forever.

The other key takeaway here, which you already know but which our trusty media seems not to, is that congressional gridlock is neither new nor an excuse for the president to unilaterally suspend laws that are politically inconvenient to him. If you’re a reporter, watch this. The truth may surprise you!

But also, there is not the hard and fast rule that you would like there to be: The law allows the Executive to administer the law by setting rules and processes up.

Yes, but not rewriting the law. If the statute says "x," he may not change it to "y." Congress must do that.

Congress does not prescribe all of those to the letter,

But, they did prescribe some to the letter in the ACA. The President then changed some of them. That's the point. If he doesn't like some of the law, he doesn't get to pick and choose. He either vetoes it wholesale or implements it as is. If he wants portions rewritten, they can be, but not by his pen and not by his phone.

it's got enough to do already. If the rules are outside the law, then it will get picked up, but if they are inside the law (and often they are), then the courts will allow it.

Not so. The courts have often given the President too much deference (see Turley). Under Obama, it's getting worse.

Again, I get it. Apparently, you would love to have Obama be Hugo Chavez. Many Americans, who have to live under his rule, would prefer our Constitution. Thanks for your concern.

Pugilists gone mad.

DF, you are insane. By virtue of your own patterns of argument I am 100% correct in my assessment. Why? because I've said so here just now. Like you, I don't need proof. If I say it, there it is, so there it is.

Danivon, you are insane. By virtue of the fact that you are unable to refrain from arguing with a madman, you have gone off the deep end. Why abuse yourself time and time again? Answer: because you are insane.

Either DF needs to actually read what is written or Danivon needs to stop responding. Until either of those two events happen we are watching horribly intoxicated people attempting intercourse here.

All I can surmise after getting caught with this thread is that in spite of DF's madness, there must be some inkling of truth that DF hits upon now and again. Shotguns have that effect at close range...and this drives the Sisyphus in Danivon to carry on.

Dag, you are right. It is clearly insane to try and argue points of observable fact with someone determined to ignore them and just keep on arguing from assertion. Which is kind of why I stopped responding after that last post.

On another thread, DF decided to make assertions about me (instead of the issue at hand) and as a result I am not responding to him there. On others he shows similar tendencies.

I argue because I don't like seeing 'wrong' - perhaps it's a mild OCD thing. I get wound up when people put words into my mouth, and for that I apologise. Once that happens perhaps I should just acknowldge there is a troll and decline to feed him any more goats.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Pugilists gone mad.

DF, you are insane. By virtue of your own patterns of argument I am 100% correct in my assessment. Why? because I've said so here just now. Like you, I don't need proof. If I say it, there it is, so there it is.

Yes, yes, thank you so much for bringing clarity. How dare i point out the incongruity of Danivon's comparison of Bush's delay of a study which virtually no one knows about or cares about with Obama's delay of entire sections of a law affecting every American.

Politically, the two events are very similar. We recall Democrats pinning their Republican opponents to the mat over the study delay, don't we? And, certainly, Obamacare is not going to be a drag on Democrats this year . . .

In other words, Dag, you're as thick as Danivon on this matter. If you want to be his sycophant, feel free. He needs one, apparently.

I thought you were arguing about the legal, constitutional etc issues with Presidential 'overreach', DF.

Well, I dissemble a little.. I mean I see that was the tack you were taking until you were shown counter-examples, and the letter of the law etc, and now you are retreating back to it really being about whether Team Heffalump can get one over on Team Eedonk.

Dag's instinct is correct, it seems. There is no point engaging.

danivon wrote:I thought you were arguing about the legal, constitutional etc issues with Presidential 'overreach', DF.

Well, I dissemble a little.. I mean I see that was the tack you were taking until you were shown counter-examples, and the letter of the law etc, and now you are retreating back to it really being about whether Team Heffalump can get one over on Team Eedonk.

Dag's instinct is correct, it seems. There is no point engaging.

Nah, when you tried to show a counter-example and I showed it to be apples to atom bombs, you joined in on the ad hominem. Standard.