Federal judge delivers blow to Biden's climate agenda: 'Destructive federal overreach'

Video
A federal judge blocked the Biden administration from implementing environmental regulations redefining how water sources are protected, but which opponents have argued were an example of overreach.

In his decision published late Sunday, Judge Jeffrey Brown ruled that the so-called Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule announced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in late December "poses irreparable harm" to residents of Texas and Idaho, the two states that challenged the regulations in the lawsuit filed on Jan. 18. Brown declined to issue a nationwide injunction, but noted 25 other states have challenged the rule in two separate ongoing lawsuits.

While I continue to battle the rule in court, this preliminary injunction is a major blow to the Biden Administration’s radical environmental agenda," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement Monday. "The unlawful rule would have saddled Texans across the state with crushing new regulations, slowing our state’s economic development and limiting our job growth.

"Securing an injunction stops the rule from going into effect," Paxton added. "This is an important victory protecting the people of Texas from destructive federal overreach."…










Read more news: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fe...-climate-agenda-destructive-federal-overreach







This is great news! Almost as good as the West Virginia ruling by the Supreme Court last year. The power of the President to enforce laws through an agency congress created without congressional input is wrong.

 

What Obama and now Biden tried to do was to micromanage decisions by farmers and ranchers, local towns and counties regarding their economic growth. The definition of waterways by the present executive branch regime is ludicrously exaggerated.

 

And a source from something a little less propagandized

https://www.natlawreview.com/articl...al-clean-water-act-will-be-law-no-more-48?amp

It looks like the EPA under trump and Obama have been trying to define this for the last decade.

 

If I has started this thread topic with another source it would have been Trending Politics. The more liberals complain about conservatives sources the response will only be to use even more conservative sources because they did. Fox News is about as liberal as I’ll go.

 

Fox News hosts were literally just caught lying to their audience for ratings — but I will give you that this is the most moderate source you post — the other ones barely fit the criteria of a blog much less legitimate news.

It is sad that you let people you hate making comments about wanting legitimate sources only drive you deeper but I guess that’s what hate does.

People that want honest debate held in good faith post legitimate sources that are not pushing a narrative one way or another.

 

1)What were the end results, the EPA was hoping to achieve?
2)What would the regulations have required, for compliance?
3)Why were the EPA's regulations, "overreach?"

I'm thinking XXJeff will be able to correctly answer one, out of my three basic questions, above. In your opinion, am I being too optimistic?

 

The problem is that there are very few sources that either side will accept. Very few. Very very few. One side will always complain about the other sides sources and the other side will complain about the one sides sources.

Its useless to complain about imo. I do admit to rarely doing such myself, but when I do I also generally address what was said in the provided article also. That imo, if you're going to complain, is the best way to go about it. That way, even if someone complains about my complaint, they still have to address the meat of what was actually important...the message, and they can't just say that all I did was "shoot the messenger".

 

I wonder what the people in East Palestine are now thinking about clean water regulations and the free market regulating itself. Oh, wait, after three weeks of fake outrage on Fox, so they could use this accident to beat up on Buttigieg and Biden, the people of East Palestine are already forgotten, and the RW media have moved on to the next fabricated Biden "scandal". They have also gone back to the typical deregulation policies that result in incidents like the East Palestine train derailment. I guess clean water is less important to the GOP and their voters than some bucks in their pocket -- as long as the contaminated water is in someone else's backyard. Once it strikes their own, they cry for the hated government for help.

 

I don’t hate anyone. I simply dislike a certain ideology which I believe is totally detrimental to all that America is. To say that sources that you disagree with are not legitimate and that we can’t have honest and legitimate debate using them is a form of condescending arrogance bordering on attempted censorship.

 

I agree with the points made by the judge in this case. His words will be mine here.

 

totally bro! Everyone knows that water belongs to farmers and ranchers for them to do with as they please with no regard to public health, safety or the environment.

Man, what a MAGASocialist world New Cal must be.

 

Sorry, we all missed the part where FEMA, the Federal Government, or Buttigieg was doing anything for the people of East Palestine. The last we all checked, it wasn't Fox News responsibility.

As a matter of fact, State and federal officials have maintained that the air, soil and water surrounding the crash site remain safe enough for residents to return and that contaminated waterways were contained.

What did Buttigieg do? Sent a three-page letter to Norfolk Southern Railway's president, accusing the company of repeatedly prioritizing profit over safety.

Meanwhile, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources announced that the number of minnows killed in a 5-mile span of waterway originating from the derailment site is estimated to be more than 38,000. The number of other aquatic life killed as a result of the derailment -- including small fish, crayfish, amphibians and macroinvertebrates -- is estimated to be around 5,500.

So you were saying something about fake outrage? Why would anyone be outraged at the Federal Government for ignoring such a disaster and lying to the residents about their health? Not liberals. I guess its all Fox News fault.

 

The difference is one side takes issue with sources being overly exaggerated, filled with partisan rhetoric or openly lying or leaving out facts while the other side has issues with sources that are moderate and have a high standard for journalistic integrity.

Those two complaints are not the same.

 

How laughable

 

Ohio got the less government they voted for. Oh well, **** em.

Go Blue!

 

Thanks for proving my point.

 

I didn’t but I am not surprised you think I did

 

You'd only quoted 3 words, from the judge: "poses irreparable harm." I had been asking-- presuming that you had read the article, and understood the issue-- for you to summarize those 3 points I'd asked about. IOW, if you understand why the judge said the regulation posed "irreparable harm," to residents (which is what your snip says), could you, in your own words, specify to your thread's visitors, the basis for the court's opinion?

 

No, you really did.

You claimed that one side has issues "with sources being overly exaggerated, filled with partisan rhetoric or openly lying or leaving out facts" while the other side "has issues with sources that are moderate and have a high standard for journalistic integrity."

I said "One side will always complain about the other sides sources and the other side will complain about the one sides sources."

You just did the very thing I talked about. Pretending one side has issues with sources "lying", while the other side has issues with sources that are "moderate and high standard for journalistic integrity" IE: telling the truth. All you did was knock the one side (the side you disagree with), while holding up the other side as being truthful and right (the side you agree with). You did exactly what I said happens.

 

Says one with nothing to rebut what I said and knows it.

 

You are the one saying others asking for legitimate sources borders on censorship.

That is so laughable there are really no words to respond with besides laugh at it.