Yes, IMO, that is exactly what he's done. He knows Texas is very much conservative, so he doesn't loose votes here because of what he does. He's done more than just this. He's refused to even meet with the Gov of Texas.....the Governor of the state with THE most miles of border with Mexico. Perry went several times to the airport when Obama stopped here to raise money from the rich Dems that DO live here.....and Obama refused to even talk to him. Wouldn't even accept the letter Perry tried to give him. That's how this president treats people from the other party and that are not Democrats. He's the president for only a portion of the country.
Not true. The Bush administration was never going to make the mistake Obama later made by over reaching federally. That was ALL Obama and his EPA who did it. They targeted Texas and they were wrong in doing so. And they just got slapped down for it. I'm just thankful the dictator and his EPA Chief got slapped down. He'll be getting more of that soon in his misguided and unconstitutional healthcare law, IMO. God only knows what he'd try if he gets another 4 years with no worry about another election.
Of course it's true. To repeat: The only reason the EPA had to take this action under Obama is because they failed to take the action during the statutorily required timeframe in which to do so, which expired during Bush's term. In other words, under the Bush administration, the EPA violated the law. Apparently, they were simply going to violate the law by not taking any action at all, which is what they did. LOL... They "targeted" Texas? Sheer nonsense. Yeah, so, what are we supposed to debate here? The fact that you are thankful? Why should we care what you're thankful for? If you want to link a news story and say you're glad about what happened, that's not a debate, that's a blog post. Where were your threads about all the times the Bush administration got "slapped down" in their misguided and unconstitutional actions? Or, aren't you thankful when a Republican is prohibited from violating the Constitution? "Politics over Constitution" FTL.
Not sure who "We" is but nobody I spoke to in Texas knew or cared about this. Your link is to the Wall Street Journal which is a known partisan swamp since Murdoch took over. The idea that anyone would title are article "Perry beats Obama" is pure comedy. Perry couldn't beat Newt, Santorum, Dr. Paul, or Romney. Neither the "article" nor you have offered any evidence that Obama had an opinion about the case or that he was even aware of it. The federal government is HUGE and POTUS is a busy guy. The system is not designed for him to weigh in on every agency decision. Furthermore that was not a well written balanced article. It was peppered with phrases like this... I don't care if a source is right wing or left wing. If I start reading an article and it is filled with childish hyperbole like that I know the author is biased and I just move on. What I don't do is post it to the internet like the gospel truth. This forum would be a lot better if people used legitimate unbiased objective sources. I have never been a moderator, but if I was going to be one I would probably try and be as objective in my opinions and sources lest I give the impression I am biased against certain people.
Well.....defend him as you will....but there was a USSC 9-0 decision against Obama's EPA just about a week ago as well. There was yet another one last February....also 9-0 against him regarding his treatment of churches. That means all the libs on the court are seeing that Obama's administration is doing some very unconsitutional things. I just started a new thread on that Supreme Court decision; you might check it out as well. The guy thinks he's a dictator and can do as he pleases.
For the sake of argument, did the EPA have a duty to act when such an act was not based in law? As the court said: "5th Circuit held that EPA's disapproval of Texas' PCP Standard Permit was arbitrary, capricious, and exceeded EPA's statutory authority because EPA "created out of whole cloth" three different and incorrect legal theories to justify its Disapproval. Specifically, the 5th Circuit concluded that EPA improperly reviewed the PCP Standard Permit for compliance with Texas law, because "it is beyond cavil that the EPA may consider only the requirements of the CAA when reviewing SIP submissions"; that EPA's "similar source" requirement was not "warranted by any applicable provision of the Act"; and that EPA's "replicability" requirement was "not a legal standard the Act authorized EPA to enforce." I may be misinterpreting what happened here but it seems to me like the EPA didn't have a duty to act. I'm no environmental lawyer, but generally failing to meet a statutory deadline doesn't mean you've committed a crime. Only, that if you do not file a rejection or claim during the time period prescribed by law, your rejection/claim is invalid. For example, in patent law it's known as the "statutory bar". If an inventor doesn't file for a patent in that one year time period, they lose the right to do so and others may claim it. Seems to me the case should have never been heard in the first place considering they'd missed the time period to respond. Something prompted them to file docket though, whatever that might be. I wouldn't subscribe to the "Obama's EPA" point-of-view. They've been overreaching their bounds since their inception. It's nothing new with this administration. It generally happens when a government agency is created with an ambiguous goal and equivocal limits to their powers.
I don't understand the repeated use of this phrase. Nixon created the EPA and neither you or your partisan links have shown any evidence that there have been ANY changes at the agency in the last few years. It's the EPA. It's a pretty boring and mundane agency that does bureaucratic stuff... like most agencies. Did POTUS sign an executive order saying "Go after Rick Perry and Texas?" Anyone that knows anything about Texas knows that it has had air quality issues for years... Linky. Texas has been in court a number of times about air quality issues. This time they won. A few years ago not only did they lose they had to fork out $140 million dollars. This is common knowledge. JP5 besides some yahoo getting hysterical in a partisan hack piece buried on page A14 no one cares. If someone told me there was a government agency that won every single court challenge now THAT would be news... and very concerning. The EPA lost a court case. Great. The system works. Checks and balances. A few years ago Texas lost a case because Bush decided as Governor to illegaly break a contract with an emissions testing company. No agency is above the law.
This isn't a discussion about when the EPA was created or under which president. It's a discussion on the Obama administration heavy-handed use of this federal agency and a specific case related to that....and was shot down by the 5th Circuit. Others have been shot down 9-0 by the USSC against Obama's EPA. You may not care....but I can guarantee you the American people care....and so does the Obama administration care that they are losing them.
Except you have absolutely no proof that Obama is "using" the EPA to do anything. As was already pointed out, you have no evidence he was even aware of this process taking place. This entire thread is nothing but, "Texas good, Obama bad, Hulk smash!!!" Why don't you just say, "USA (*)(*)(*)(*) YEAH!!!" and get it over with? For a mod to have created this thread is frankly embarrassing.
You and that hysterical author have not offered up any proof Obama personally had any knowledge of this case let alone had an opinion. These rants are like saying "Obama made my mail late today."
Hmmm....looks like you're just a bit ticked off because Obama is losing his court cases.....and with liberals joining in against him. These ARE Current Events and recent cases. IF you don't like the subject matter, then you probably should just bow out of the thread. There are those who DO want to discuss it.
It's not just me that has noticed it: Senators Fight to Stop EPA's Takeover of All Water Introduce Legislation to halt EPA's draft Clean Water Act Jurisdictional Guidance WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senators John Barrasso (R-WY) Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Dean Heller (R-NV) and 26 other Senators introduced legislation to stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from taking over all private water in the United States. The "Preserve the Waters of the U.S. Act" prevents the EPA and the Army Corp of Engineers (Corps) from using their overreaching "guidance" to change legal responsibilities under the Clean Water Act (CWA). "President Obama's EPA continues to act as if it is above the law. It is using this overreaching guidance to pre-empt state and local governments, farmers and ranchers, small business owners and homeowners from making local land and water use decisions," said Barrasso. "Our bill will stop this unprecedented Washington power grab and restore Americans' property rights. It's time to get EPA lawyers out of Americans' backyards." "The Obama-EPA's proposed water guidance greatly expands the Clean Water Act's scope through a slew of new and expanded definitions. This approach is so unpopular, however, that it was originally defeated in the previous Democratic controlled Congress. Nevertheless, the Obama administration continues to move these policies forward." http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....2e-23021cb6cc52&CFID=1341541&CFTOKEN=27946066 So---even though a Democrat controlled Congress didn't get it passed.....the Obama is STILL trying to shove it down the nation's throat. Just like they did Obamacare. They don't care who they run over.
I'm not the one who made the thread. I don't care that "he's" losing court cases (despite that "he" is not in any tangible way involved in them). I actually support elimination of the EPA almost totally. However, I oppose ridiculous rants filled with misinformation on any account. Well you sure do. Obama derangement syndrome knows no bounds!
I bet the WHOLE story is even more interesting and illuminating than your tunnel-vision version of it.
That's right. Those along with who I listed, plus more all make up mainstream media. So why the confusion and pretending?
