Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Sunday, July 15, 2018

The War Is Over: Mulvaney No Longer Has This Headache At The CFPB

Matt Vespa @mvespa1 Posted: Jul 08, 2018

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney is no longer saddled with this headache: the leadership challenge at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is over. The OMB director has been in charge of the CFPB since last November, which turned into another front in the resistance war against the Trump White House. Then-director Richard Cordray resigned last year to prepare for his Ohio gubernatorial run. His deputy, Leandra English, thought she would take the reins, but the CFPB is within the executive, so Trump tapped Mulvaney to head the agency until a replacement could be found. English and Mulvaney then engaged in a prolonged legal battle over who is captaining the ship. In the end, the court ruled that Mulvaney would be acting director; English subsequently filed a lawsuit............To Read More....

Stare Decisis is Like a Street Sign: "Drive Only On the Left!"

By Rich Kozlovich 7/15/2018, updated 10:03 AM

I just read Bastasch’s article, Brett Kavanaugh put a serious damper on EPA power grabs, which gave me more confidence in this man, at least until he ended the article saying this about overturning the Endangerment Finding. He says:
"However, Adler (a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law) said it’s unlikely the court overturn Massachusetts v. EPA because of its strong tradition of “stare decisis” — latin for “to stand by things decided.” “It’s one thing to overturn a bad constitutional decision because Congress can’t fix that,” Adler said, though he added a Kennedy-less court could narrow the application of Massachusetts v. EPA. “It’s not going to be overturned,” he said."
For a law professor to say such a thing on such an issue is clearly demonstrating his bias in my opinion, especially since the adoration to "stare decisis" is a one way street for leftists.

I’m not sure how Kavanaugh would vote on a new Endangerment Finding case, but we need to get rid of this idea of “stare decisis” as the deciding factor.

These leftist justices have overturned “stare decisis” over and over again, and have been lauded by the very leftists who claim to adore the concept. Let's try and get this right - "stare decisis" - is not written in stone and the only reason to openly support it as something that’s “sacred” is nothing more than a public relations scam by anyone involved in politics or law. The left only 'adores' the concept if someone supports any of the leftist decisions that overturned "stare decisis" decisions of the past. Any effort to overturn leftist decisions that have no Constitutional basis other than what's called the "penumbra of the Constitution" is sacrilege to the law and the Constitution according to the left.
"In United States constitutional law, the penumbra includes a group of rights derived, by implication, from other rights explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights. These rights have been identified through a process of "reasoning-by-interpolation", where specific principles are recognized from "general idea" that are explicitly expressed in other constitutional provisions......."
An open ended concept that allows for abuse!

The word penumbra originally was a scientific term "created to describe the shadows that occur during eclipses." And I think the word shadows is more than appropriate when its used in relationship with the Constitution.   The "penumbra" of the Constitution "implies" rights not actually written in the Constitution, and in fact the concept allows for the ability to define, redefine and even ignore the actual and simple language of the Constitution, all of which has been done by the federal judiciary at every level. All in an effort to make the Constitution a "Living Document".

The problem with that is all the "living" changes are determined by the wrong branch of government. The Constitution never gave the federal judiciary to right to "legislate" via some indefinable term that's been adopted by those whose one desire is to destroy the Constitution. The unelected Judiciary have overstepped their Constitutional bounds into the territory the Constitution assigns to the Legislature.

It's always amazing how devoted progressives, socialists, leftists and liberals are to the Constitution, when it's convenient. But in reality, this is the document they've called a dusty old document and many early Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson considered an "impediment to human progress".  Nothing has changed!  Any concerns they express about devotion to "stare decisis" is strictly politics.

Now, that brings me back to green issues, Kavanaugh and the Supreme Court. Here’s one thing I don’t think many know and I think could be a big factor in deciding any green issue that comes before SCOTUS.

Who was Justice Neil Gorsuch’s mother?

See the source imageAnn Burford Gorsuch, a one time head of the EPA during the Reagan administration who was eviscerated by the left and the green movement in and out of government, and those she called "pack journalists." I have no doubt about his view of the leftist swamp and their green misanthropic allies.

Will that have an impact on Kavanaugh?    I don't know, except I have no doubt Gorsuch has a much clearer understanding of all these green issues and the people involved than any of the rest.  And I'm confident he has the ability to explain them properly.

As for Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor? They're hopeless. They couldn't be convinced day was light or night was dark if it wasn't supportive of some kind of leftist clabber or other.  Not a one of them pass the test of unbiased open mindedness the left demands of Trump's appointments or a rational understanding of what the Constitution really says, often times creating policies that have shattered generations of Americans. 

However, they support those who believe the following:
  • 58% of Democrats believe in UFOs, but only 32% are proud to be American. Only 37% of Republicans believe in flying saucers, but a full 80% are proud of their country.
  • Almost twice as many Democrats are willing to believe in being abducted by space aliens than in their country. Hillary Clinton had promised that if elected, she would find out the truth about the little green men and suggested that the planet had already been visited by aliens. "Maybe we could have, like, a task force to go to Area 51," she suggested.
  • The chair of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, John Podesta, an obsessive UFO buff, appeared on an episode of Ancient Aliens which claimed that Hillary Clinton was defeated to suppress the truth about space aliens.
  • Democrats are the party least likely to know that the earth revolves around the sun once a year. Only between 48% to 27% of the enlightened supporters of the Party of Science actually knew this.
  • 45% of liberals believe in astrology.
  • Three-quarters of Democrats believe that thoughts can influence the physical world.
  • Over half believe in ghosts.
  • Almost a third of Democrats, twice as many as Republicans, believe in “spiritual energy”. 35% of liberals compared to 18% of conservatives are believers.
  • A fifth of Democrats fear the “evil eye”.
  • If you can name a superstition, knocking on wood, walking under ladders or stepping on a crack, polls show that Democrats are more likely to believe in it.
  • Democrats are 60% more likely to fear black cats than Republicans (so much for the anti-racist party)
  • 33% more likely to fear the number 13.
  • The rational and enlightened elite who want to make all our decisions are also 54% more likely to think that opening an umbrella indoors is bad luck.
  • A fifth of Democrats believe it’s unlucky to walk under a ladder.
  • Nearly a fifth believe in fortune telling.
But be on the left is a one way street, and being open minded to the left means being so open your brains fall out.

Sacred peer-review takes a big hit

July 10, 2018 by , 722 Comments

When the alarmist community seeks to push a new argument or messaging strategy in the global warming debate, they first have one of their pseudo-scientists write an article for publication in a compromised peer-reviewed journal. The political left has infiltrated and taken over most science journals that address political hot topics, much as they have taken over most of the “mainstream” news media. This is especially the case regarding global warming issues. As the leaked Climategate emails revealed, editors of science journals typically are prominent alarmists or deliberately coordinate with prominent alarmists in the selection of articles and messaging.

The “peer-review process” typically involves the editor sending a submitted article to a team of reviewers who are outspoken climate activists. After the paper is published, global warming activists and their media allies typically cite the peer-reviewed nature of the paper as evidence that its conclusions are infallible. Any who question the methodology or alarmist conclusions are then labeled science deniers.

According to Ioannidis, the peer-review process guarantees little in terms of trustworthiness even before political agendas compromise the issue.

“[W]hen studies are replicated, they rarely come up with the same results. Only a third of the 100 studies published in three top psychology journals could be successfully replicated in a large 2015 test,” AFP reported, summarizing Ioannidis’ findings.

“Medicine, epidemiology, population science and nutritional studies fare no better, Ioannidis said, when attempts are made to replicate them,” according to AFP.

When only a third of peer-reviewed studies reach the same results when they are replicated by outside authors, this is a serious problem. Regarding climate change papers, the peer-reviewed papers are likely even less reliable – before even considering the inescapably political nature of the topic – because many papers address predictions and models for which it is impossible to test the paper’s conclusions against objective evidence. For example, when a scientist invents a climate model predicting rapid global warming or seriously negative future climate impacts, and when a paper summarizing the results of his or her model appears in a peer-reviewed journal, there is no way at the time of publication to compare the climate predictions against real-world observations. This adds an additional level of doubt to the accuracy of global warming predictions published in peer-reviewed science journals. And this is before taking into consideration the inherently political nature of the global warming debate and the political agendas of journal editors and their carefully selected article reviewers.

The lesson to be learned is the liberal media engage in laziness or deliberate misrepresentation when they cherry-pick certain peer-reviewed studies and claim that anybody who questions them is “attacking science,” “attacking scientists,” or being a “denialist.” Sound science requires critically testing theories and predictions – including those published in peer-reviewed science journals – against objective evidence.

About the Author: CFACT

CFACT defends the environment and human welfare through facts, news, and analysis.

Brett Kavanaugh put a serious damper on EPA power grabs

by , 17 Comments @ CFACT

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s choices to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court, has played a role in reining in executive branch agencies.

Kavanaugh, one of the most conservative judges on the D.C. Circuit Court, has authored opinions skeptical of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations many conservatives see as abuses of federal power.

“On these issues, he’s someone who would take seriously the idea that agencies only have the authority Congress granted them,” Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“If one’s primary concern is stuff related to administrative law, then he has more experience than she does,” said Adler, who teaches environmental, administrative and constitutional law classes.

Kavanaugh’s position on the D.C. Circuit Court means he’s authored opinions on many environmental law cases, including high-profile dissents on major environmental law cases.

Kavanaugh, a former President George W. Bush appointee, dissented in the D.C. Circuit’s 2012 decision not to rehear legal action brought against EPA regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.
During oral arguments over the legality of the Clean Power Plan, Kavanagh said, “Global warming is not a blank check.”

Kavanaugh used a similar line when striking down Obama administration regulations on hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, in 2017.

“Climate change is not a blank check for the President,” Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion, ruling the EPA did not have the power to regulate greenhouse gases under its authority over ozone-depleting substances.

Kavanaugh also dissented in the D.C. Circuit’s upholding of Obama administration regulations on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Kavanaugh’s dissent was affirmed by the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling that struck down the Obama-era rule.

“No regulation is ‘appropriate’ if it does significantly more harm than good,” former Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion in 2015.

Some Democrats and environmental activists fretted that Kennedy’s departure from the court could mean the EPA’s authority to issue global warming regulations could be overturned. That authority was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA.

The Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 decision was only possible because Kennedy sided with liberal justices. Some fear Kavanaugh would tip the balance against EPA authority.

“Nothing environmentally good is going to come out of replacing Anthony Kennedy with anyone whom Donald Trump believes is qualified to sit on not only the Supreme Court, but any court,” former Sierra Club lawyer David Bookbinder told E&E News.

However, Adler said it’s unlikely the court overturn Massachusetts v. EPA because of its strong tradition of “stare decisis” — latin for “to stand by things decided.”

“It’s one thing to overturn a bad constitutional decision because Congress can’t fix that,” Adler said, though he added a Kennedy-less court could narrow the application of Massachusetts v. EPA.
“It’s not going to be overturned,” he said.

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller

About the Author: Michael Bastasch writes on energy, climate and the environment for the Daily Caller.

Recycling: Another environmental scam goes bust

By Colin Flaherty July 14, 2018

Anyone who has ever been to a recycling plant is invariably surprised at how dirty and nasty America's favorite green activity really is.  Trucks dump the material on a long conveyor belt, where a few dozen people pick through by hand what is supposed to be recyclable material but more and more often is just plain old dirty trash.

The recyclables used to be worth something more than bragging rights about liberal moral superiority.  Plastic bottles, newspapers, and cardboard were just a few of the favorites you could ship to China by the ton and make a few bucks along the way.  No more: Last year, the Chinese were happy to pay us $100 a ton for newsprint.  Today, $5 a ton is the going rate.............. "There was a time a few years ago when it was cheaper to recycle.  It's just not the case anymore," Christopher Shorter, director of public works for the city of Washington, told the AFP news agency.  "It will be more and more expensive for us to recycle," he said.

Even the Los Angeles Times has figured it out: "Environmentally minded Californians love to recycle – but it's no longer doing any good," said the headline.  And this is coming from a paper whose official policy is not to publish any letters to the editor that question global warming because everyone knows that it is a scientific fact.

Just like recycling...........To Read More....

Friday, July 13, 2018

House GOP unveils package to eliminate 'frivolous' lawsuits over endangered species

by John Siciliano July 12, 2018

The House GOP unveiled a legislative package on Thursday that would enact major reforms to the Endangered Species Act, eliminating "frivolous" lawsuits over species protections while streamlining the permit process for developers and energy companies.

The reform package, called the "Endangered Species Act Modernization Package," included nine bills meant to reform the 1973 law to focus on "recovery" of threatened and endangered species, rather than keeping species listed indefinitely. 

 Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said the Endangered Species Act, if it were a Major League Baseball player, would have a batting average below .100. "That means the Endangered Species Act is the most inept program we have in the federal government," he explained.......... To Read More.....

Thursday, July 12, 2018

British "Animal activists" kill thousands of fish

John Ray

Police have warned fish farmers to increase their security after 15,000 halibut were released from their cages in an attack believed to have been carried out by animal rights activists. Thousands of dead fish are being washed up along the west coast of Scotland after the raid at Kames Marine Fish Farm, near Oban. The perpetrators are thought to have attacked last week. Detectives believe that the attack could be linked to a spate of other farm attacks throughout the country. The letters ALF (Animal Liberation Front) were spray-painted near by.

The loss is estimated to have cost the fish farm at least 500,000 pounds as boats, cranes and offices were also vandalised. The halibut died from starvation or getting caught in seaweed. They were also being eaten by herring gulls and otters.

The fish farmer, who did not wish to be identified, said: "They claim they liberated them into the sea but sadly, as we all know, farmed animals, whether they are fish or any animals, don't survive unless they are looked after. The fish farmer added: "We farm them in a sustainable way. The welfare of the fish is at the forefront of our minds. Isn't it better to have farmed fish than to be pillaging the seas where stocks are declining dramatically?" Fish farms in Scotland, Kent and the South West have been attacked in the past year.