Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, October 18, 2017

This week, Scott Pruitt and his polluter cronies are aggressively perpetrating the lie they call "sue and settle" as a way of refusing to enforce our nation's critical environmental laws. On Monday, Pruitt announced that the Environmental Protection Agency would avoid settling lawsuits with public interest groups and instead would lean toward fighting cases in court. But don't be fooled: This is a phony remedy in search of a problem to solve. It's important to note from the start that the polluter-backed U.S. Chamber of Commerce report underlying Pruitt's false rhetoric has been regularly debunked in the academic literature on the topic. As the Harvard Environmental Law Review concluded in its review of the topic: "This analysis reveals the current ‘sue-and-settle' debate for what it is: a war of words relying on emotionally charged rhetoric to score political points."

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The environmental groups that were in on this scam must be furious, but they've been remarkably quiet - don't want to draw public attention to this corrupt practice.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-18 03:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"that has harmed the American public"

how were you harmed?

#2 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-10-18 03:48 PM | Reply

What's the scam Jeff?

#3 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-18 04:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Scott Pruitt suggests he will restrict scientists who get EPA grants from advising the agency www.washingtonpost.com

#4 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-18 04:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Scott Pruitt's EPA Says Maybe More Radiation Exposure Wouldn't Be So Harmful gizmodo.com

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-18 04:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Scott Pruitt, Trump's E.P.A. Pick, Backed Industry Donors Over Regulators www.nytimes.com

#6 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-18 04:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Scott Pruitt and the Myth of "Settle and Sue"
EPA administrator uses alternative facts to avoid enforcing environmental laws

www.sierraclub.org

#7 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-18 04:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

EPA: 5,000 Chest X-Rays of Radiation Exposure Safe, Up from Zero www.metro.us

#8 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-18 04:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Fancy dinners, far-flung speeches: Calendars detail EPA chief's close ties to industry www.washingtonpost.com

#9 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-18 04:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Scam is someone put the fox in the hen house.

#10 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-10-18 04:10 PM | Reply

Scott Pruitt Is Carrying Out His E.P.A. Agenda in Secret, Critics Say www.nytimes.com

#11 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-18 04:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Who Is the E.P.A. Administrator Scott Pruitt Meeting With? A Detailed Schedule www.nytimes.com

#12 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-18 04:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

New email and meeting records show Scott Pruitt is tight with the fossil fuel industry
Tell me more about your regulatory burden.

thinkprogress.org

#13 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-18 04:12 PM | Reply

What Is Scott Pruitt Hiding?
The EPA administrator's media aversion, unavailable public schedule, and a history of industry favors are raising red flags.

newrepublic.com

#14 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-18 04:12 PM | Reply

Meetings with energy chiefs filled Pruitt's calendar www.eenews.net

#15 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-18 04:13 PM | Reply

NYT: Scott Pruitt's calendar shows fine dining with officials from companies he regulates. twitter.com

#16 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-18 04:13 PM | Reply

That's how many things get changed through the judicial process. It all goes back to fundamental right to redress. When congress won't act in the best interest of the people the people must do what congress won't.

#17 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-10-18 04:14 PM | Reply

U.S. environmental chief Scott Pruitt met in March with oil executives over dinner in Trump International Hotel, just as he was moving to relieve the industry of one of its biggest Obama-era regulatory burdens: a requirement to curtail methane leaks.

The session inside the hotel just blocks from the White House was just one of a series of meetings the Environmental Protection Agency administrator had with oil, coal and chemical leaders during his first six weeks on the job, according to newly released details of his schedule.

The meetings include sessions with coal magnate Robert E. Murray and Dow Chemical Co. Chief Executive Andrew Liveris, but none with officials from environmental or health groups, the 35-page list shows. The schedule, spanning Feb. 21 to March 31, shows Pruitt visiting with many of the corporate stakeholders set to benefit from his moves to reverse or revise regulations governing water pollution, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

www.bloomberg.com

#18 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-18 04:14 PM | Reply

--Meetings with energy chiefs filled Pruitt's calendar www.eenews.net

As if any official doesn't meet with all the interest groups. What is he supposed to do? Meet only with Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, Earth First, and Carrot Crunchers for Environmental Justice?

#19 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-18 04:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

What's the scam Jeff?

#3 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

What is Sue and Settle?

"Sue and Settle" refers to when a federal agency agrees to a settlement agreement, in a lawsuit from special interest groups, to create priorities and rules outside of the normal rulemaking process. The agency intentionally relinquishes statutory discretion by committing to timelines and priorities that often realign agency duties. These settlement agreements are negotiated behind closed doors with no participation from the public or affected parties.

As an example, between 2009 and 2012, EPA chose not to defend itself in over 60 lawsuits from special interest advocacy groups. These cases resulted in settlement agreements and EPA publishing more than 100 new regulations - including the recent Clean Power Plan.


www.uschamber.com

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-18 04:22 PM | Reply

As if any official doesn't meet with all the interest groups. What is he supposed to do? Meet only with Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, Earth First, and Carrot Crunchers for Environmental Justice?

#19 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2017-10-18 04:20 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

He's doing that Nulli.

#21 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-18 04:48 PM | Reply

"Crying alone with a ----- over the EPA...

That's ME time"

-BruceBanner

#22 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-18 04:51 PM | Reply

#22 I'm sure you -------- in your living room

#23 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-18 05:03 PM | Reply

#20 so this prevents Americans from ensuring that laws are followed.

Doesn't sound great to me

#24 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-18 05:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What it is is a power grab by Pruitt. Now only he or congress can decide.

#25 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-18 05:35 PM | Reply

Why is it that power is amassed and handed out to the few by the GOP?

#26 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-18 05:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

LScott Pruitt's EPA Says Maybe More Radiation Exposure Wouldn't Be So Harmful gizmodo.com
#5 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

Its true, so long as all of it is directed at trump supporters.

#27 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-18 05:57 PM | Reply

The environmental groups that were in on this scam must be furious, but they've been remarkably quiet - don't want to draw public attention to this corrupt practice.
#1 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-10-18 03:37 PM | FLAG:

What's the scam Jeff?
#3 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

You know Jeff just parrots whatever he reads on Conservative sites and the President's twitter.

#29 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-19 10:31 AM | Reply

#30 The policy seems pretty clear. It's now your turn to say why Americans can't ask that environmental regulations be followed.

If the burden is that they be directly harmed by the policies, then it seems clear they have ground to ask for their day in court because they actually live in the environment.

To ask that congress be the only source of action is to ask that nothing ever happen.

#31 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-19 11:44 AM | Reply

#30 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You cited the US Chamber, a cheerleader for Scott Pruitt shutting down the EPA. You ALWAYS post this kind of stuff; parroting whatever the Conservative talking point of the day is ripped from a website. And yet there is ZERO analysis in your post.

Why is it wrong the Agency passes regulations this way, you ask? They wouldn't do it if they were going to win in court. They do it because the Court will likely order the regulation or regulation enforcement anyway.

The scam, because you are too dense to read about it, is that the EPA refuses to enforce the laws on behalf of the polluters. So environment groups are forced to pay attorneys to file complaints in court. Then the EPA backs down and enforces the regulation or fixes the regulation. The problem is these environment groups can't force the EPA to enforce every regulation or comply with every law. So they have to pick and choose. The polluters always win because even if they lose on some regulatory enforcement, they win on many others.

Anything else, Parrot?

#32 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-19 02:09 PM | Reply

The scam, is that EPA bureaucrats collude with environmental groups behind closed doors. They set the policy they hope to collectively achieve, that they can't achieve through statute and then said environmental group sues with the understanding that the EPA will quickly settle, which will then force the EPA to enact a regulation that exceeds its statutory authority and also bypasses the transparency of the rules making processes.

Your response is to slaughter the source.

To give a good example, when the EPA lost the 2007 case of Massachusetts vs. EPA (that was the one that said the EPA could regulate greenhouse gas emissions), employees at EPA opened champagne to celebrate their "loss" at the Supreme Court.

www.powerlineblog.com

Who celebrates losing a court case? Only those who want to lose.

You celebrate corruption and opaqueness because the political outcome is to your liking. That isn't principle, it's called being a partisan hack.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 02:31 PM | Reply

To ask that congress be the only source of action is to ask that nothing ever happen.

#31 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

Nobody is asking that. Congress can't execute laws. The Clean Water Act and the Clear Air Act give the EPA plenty of regulatory power, but it isn't limitless. That's where "settle and sue" comes into play. It's a clever way to circumvent the process in order to aggrandize more and more power into the bureaucracy and insulate it from any oversight.

The silence of environmental groups over this move is deafening. We all know they are infuriated, but they can't say anything because it will only draw attention to the ---------- relationship they've had with the EPA over the past couple of decades. That silence tells you pretty much everything you need to know about this.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 02:36 PM | Reply

Bruce,

This does nothing to diminish the ability of environmental groups to sue the EPA for lack of regulatory enforcement.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 02:46 PM | Reply

That silence tells you pretty much everything you need to know about this.

The Sierra Club (an environmental group) isn't silent at the link. Read it. Maybe you'll recognize that you've fallen for another right-wing lie funded by polluters and spread by their puppets in the GOP.

I changed the link because yours was a load of crap. You didn't even have the courtesy to light a match.

#36 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-19 02:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Sierra Club (an environmental group) isn't silent at the link. Read it. Maybe you'll recognize that you've fallen for another right-wing lie funded by polluters and spread by their puppets in the GOP.

#36 | POSTED BY RCADE

Ah yes.

Everything you disagree with is some right-wing lie or propaganda because you seem to believe you have a monopoly on the truth.

The machinations of 'settle and sue' are obvious to pretty much everyone.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 02:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I changed the link because yours was a load of crap. You didn't even have the courtesy to light a match.

#36 | POSTED BY RCADE

My original blog was to a far better link, but it got deleted. I assumed it was due to the source I used. I emailed you about it and you never responded. The one I used for the thread I created was chosen because the source seemed more neutral.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 02:54 PM | Reply

JEffj is an expert in environmental regs

Apparently some being compensated for someone else messing up "their way of life" personaly harmed him

Raparian rights hurt America, embolden our enemy's, (aka your neighbor) and disrespects veterans

#39 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-10-19 03:19 PM | Reply

Republicants do not mind pooping in your rice bowl as long as there are profits for the lobbyists involved.

Clean air and clean water is highly overrated anyway.

#40 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-19 03:25 PM | Reply

#33 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

That's so adorable that you quoted Powerline Blog. Maybe you should go back to quoting Trump's Twitter account. It's actually more liberal than Powerline.

Also EPA lawyers don't call the shots. The HEAD of the EPA or the President does. In this case Pruit and Trump. At worst, it's Pruit's main staff. It's not the attorneys or rank and file (who you accuse of celebrating).

And the reason they settle is because they KNOW they are going to lose in Court even if Congress or the President doesn't want the regulation enacted or enforced. They don't settle if they are going to win. Did you even BOTHER to notice that your article didn't give a single example of where the EPA settled a case they should have won? Might be because your author, Steven Hayward, doesn't have a law degree.

Of course the rank and file celebrate. They actually know what they are talking about rather than people like you. While I'm sure you are just fine with lead in the water because Trump's twitter told you it was fine, the people at the EPA know it is killing you and likely do pop open the champagne bottles when the case settles that helps save your health. That's scoundrels I know.

Instead they will not fight EVERY case and still lose. And the regulation will still be enforced. But NOW you get to pay lots more in attorney's fees to the EPA and to the environment groups when they win. But also many regulations that are not legal or are not enforced will never be enforced because the environmental groups can't afford to fight them all.

That's the scam, Parrot.

#41 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-19 04:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

That's so adorable that you quoted Powerline Blog.

Ah yes. Slaughter the source. Fact is, there is not a source in existence you won't attack if it doesn't conform to your narrative.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 04:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#41 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Here you go:

www.epw.senate.gov

Here is an article based on this report:

thehill.com

I will read the piece that Rcade linked from Sierra Club.

I am willing to bet you'll completely ignore the links I just posted.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 04:58 PM | Reply

"That's so adorable that you quoted Powerline Blog."
Ah yes. Slaughter the source. Fact is, there is not a source in existence you won't attack if it doesn't conform to your narrative.

#42 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I'm guess that's your only response. So let me help you, Parrot. Powerline is a hardcore right wing blog. The author of your article is not an attorney. He offers no case to vindicate his claim that the EPA settles cases that it shouldn't.

The factual studies show "Sue and Settle" is a myth.

Oh, the people who train the attorneys and paralegals at the EPA are friends of mine.

Care to keep going, Parrot?

#44 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-19 04:59 PM | Reply

From my link:

According to the EPW Committee's report, EPA officials and the NRDC shared information through private email accounts, held an informal meeting at a Starbucks in Washington, and even discussed the words that would be used to explain the plan to the public.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 05:01 PM | Reply

From my link:
According to the EPW Committee's report, EPA officials and the NRDC shared information through private email accounts, held an informal meeting at a Starbucks in Washington, and even discussed the words that would be used to explain the plan to the public.
#45 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

And?

Did they settle a case they were going to win in court? No.

#46 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-19 05:04 PM | Reply

Oh, the people who train the attorneys and paralegals at the EPA are friends of mine.

#44 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Wow. I'm really impressed. Do you want a cookie?

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 05:05 PM | Reply

Did they settle a case they were going to win in court? No.

#46 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

And you know this how?

Court cases are rarely slam-dunks.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 05:06 PM | Reply

Wow. I'm really impressed. Do you want a cookie?

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 05:05 PM | Reply

Yes please a couple dozen walnut chip cookies please. Thank You.

#49 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-10-19 05:07 PM | Reply

Did they settle a case they were going to win in court? No.
#46 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
And you know this how?
Court cases are rarely slam-dunks.
#48 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Actually...99% are. And that's why 99% settle rather than go to trial.

#50 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-19 05:07 PM | Reply

Are you familiar with the EPW report I linked?

There's a reason why IG's exist. There's a reason why investigative congressional committees are formed.

You act as if it is unheard of that a government agency would engage in any kind of shenanigans.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 05:08 PM | Reply

#50

It's not 99%. It's more like 82-90%, which is still a high number. A lot of settlements aren't due to possible outcome, but simply due to costs. If a defendant will incur more in legal fees defending himself than damages the plaintiff is claiming, that will just about always result in settlement, even if the plaintiff's case is weak.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 05:11 PM | Reply

"It's more like 82-90%, which is still a high number."

Is that out of line with other agencies?

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-19 05:14 PM | Reply

#51 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Look, Parrot, its over. You are grasping at straws now. The very premise of your Powerline blog story was proven false in studies cited in the story at the top of this thread.

Your own article from Powerline can't even provide a single example of the EPA settling a case that it could have won. Not a single one.

Seriously let that sink in though. Not a single case was found that the EPA settled where it shouldn't have. Not one. Ever. In your own blog post above, not one.

It may feel wrong to you but its not a scam. The EPA isn't settling cases it shouldn't regardless of the champagne.

On the other hand, the EPA is not enforcing or enacting regulations it should thanks to Pruit and Trump. Now THAT'S a scam.

You are embarrassing yourself, Parrot.

#54 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-19 05:15 PM | Reply

--Powerline Blog.

A better source of opinion than the progressive go-to website, "Teen Vogue."

#55 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-19 05:16 PM | Reply

This is undoubtedly related:

Critics are leaping on private emails from the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency that seem to show her using the alias of "Richard Windsor" to communicate with people outside the government.

Messages released Wednesday show former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson using the Windsor email account to talk with people who would later serve in the Obama administration.

During her tenure at the EPA, Jackson occasionally used the secondary email account in correspondence with staff.

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who released the emails, claims that Jackson crossed the line by using the account to communicate with outside officials.

"EPA has shown an absolute disregard for transparency with their email practices, but this one is pretty bizarre," said Vitter, the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, in a statement.

"We also know now that Lisa Jackson used the alias ‘Richard Windsor' to correspond outside of the EPA, including with environmental activists. There are still a lot of unanswered transparency questions, and Jackson's replacement, nominee Gina McCarthy, is responsible for answering them and reinforcing transparency as a priority for the future of the Agency."


thehill.com

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 05:17 PM | Reply

Are you familiar with the EPW report I linked?

I asked this question a bit up-thread.

#54 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

I'll take that as a 'no.'

You really should take a look at that report.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 05:19 PM | Reply

"It's more like 82-90%, which is still a high number."
Is that out of line with other agencies?

#53 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

That number wasn't the EPA. That's a number for ALL cases.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 05:20 PM | Reply

It's not 99%. It's more like 82-90%, which is still a high number. A lot of settlements aren't due to possible outcome, but simply due to costs. If a defendant will incur more in legal fees defending himself than damages the plaintiff is claiming, that will just about always result in settlement, even if the plaintiff's case is weak.

#52 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Actually, that's a rather LOW number when it comes to cases.

And that second statement is only applicable to personal injury cases. Not to environmental regulatory cases because environmental regulatory cases are often not focused on damages, but upon enforcement or enactment of regulatory schemes.

Parrot, you are completely out of your depth. Get a clue.

#59 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-19 05:42 PM | Reply

#54 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
I'll take that as a 'no.'
You really should take a look at that report.
#57 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Parrot, it's simple. If you or anyone else could find a single case that was wrongly settled, you would have.

But you didn't. All you did was point out that the agency has been too nice and cozy to environmental groups suing it. And now they are too nice to pollutors.

You haven't proven any scam. In fact, you've proven the opposite.

So let me say it again:

NOT A SINGLE CASE SETTLED THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN

Game over, Parrot. Good night and thanks for wasting everyone's time.

#60 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-19 05:44 PM | Reply

#60

Obviously you are ignoring the report I linked.

It doesn't conform to your little narrative.

People who proclaim the debate is over have usually lost. That is certainly true in this case.

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 05:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

From the report:

Findings

 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) efforts to regulate carbon emissions from power plants were driven by Obama Administration officials and environmental activist groups who worked to fulfill the President's climate commitments following the defeat of climate legislation in Congress and lack of support for an international climate treaty. – pages 15-17, 29, 50, and 56

 EPA rushed into a "sue-and-settle" agreement with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), other environmental activists, and several state and local governments in 2010 to issue unprecedented carbon regulations with little regard to the technical, legal, and policy challenges that that these rules would present. – pages 14-19, 21, 26, 30-39, 45-48, 56, and 61

 EPA played politics with the regulatory process by trying to manipulate rulemaking deadlines to avoid a public backlash close to the 2012 Presidential and 2014 midterm elections, and to push implementation of the rules to the next Administration. – pages 16, 17, 31-34, 40-49, 55, and 64

 The carbon rules were the product of the quintessential "sue-and-settle" scheme where EPA and environmental activists, such as NRDC, continued to negotiate behind closed doors, changing regulatory actions and deadlines without providing the public meaningful notice or opportunity to comment. – pages 17-19, 24, 26, 31, and 40-45

 EPA officials repeatedly misled the American people, the news media, and Congress about their negotiations with environmental activists and the contribution made by these activists to the development of the carbon rules. – pages 4-6,43, 47, 48, 54, 62-64, and 67
 The White House, EPA, and environmental activists worked together to manage the public message on the carbon rules. – pages 28-29, 33-35, 39, 46, 47, 50-51, 54, and 68

 The litigation settlement provided the environmental activists significant leverage to drive the timing of EPA's rulemaking and to influence the scope of its policies. – pages 30-32, 35, 40-46, and 67

 EPA's process for developing the carbon rules appears to have deviated from the Agency's statutory authority under the Clean Air Act and established policies and circumvented transparency laws and public participation requirements. – pages 22, 23, 28, 32, 43, 48-49, and 62-64

 Attorneys with NRDC and other environmental activist groups have worked with EPA to shore up the shaky legal basis for the carbon rules, issuing public statements criticizing opponents of the rule and submitting detailed legal analyses for EPA to rely on and cite in its rulemaking documents. – pages 59-68

 EPA and environmental activists had cozy relationships and egregiously used personal emails and held meetings away from EPA headquarters, thereby avoiding public transparency. – pages 20, 22, 25, 28, 39, 43, 48, and 54-56

#62 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 05:53 PM | Reply

And, since Sycophant lives to slaughter the source, the EPW consists of 21 members - 10 are Democrats. In short, it's a bipartisan group.

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 05:58 PM | Reply

And, since Sycophant lives to slaughter the source, the EPW consists of 21 members - 10 are Democrats. In short, it's a bipartisan group.

#63 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

It's got to be difficult to be that dumb...

The EPW consists of those members. The Majority Report is not ALL of the members. It's the Majority Staff Report (Republican). Then there is the Minority Staff Report...

#64 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-19 06:31 PM | Reply

Then there is the Minority Staff Report...

#64 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Can you link it?

My Google search for it came up empty.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 06:36 PM | Reply

People who proclaim the debate is over have usually lost. That is certainly true in this case.

#61 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You just don't have any facts. You have political talking points and a report by the Republicans on the EPW.

IF those cases had been settled improperly, businesses could sue the EPA over it. But they didn't because they weren't. There simply weren't the Due Process violations you parrot from the Republican Majority Staff Report.

Here is what it comes down to:

You don't understand how the legal system works. And when you don't understand something, you assume its a scam. But that doesn't make it a scam. It just makes you a fool. And you compound that foolishness by parroting it here. You did this when you said FEMA had PR under control. And you are doing it here with Republican hit pieces.

#66 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-19 06:36 PM | Reply

I am very willing to look at all sides of this.

So, if you have something useful, please provide it.

#67 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 06:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Then there is the Minority Staff Report...
#64 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
Can you link it?
My Google search for it came up empty.
#65 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

There isn't a Minority Staff Report. There also isn't a Staff Report (i.e. Committee Report of the whole).

There is only the Republican Majority Staff Report. That's literally what a Majority Staff Report is.

Were you not actually aware of what a Majority Staff Report was?

#68 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-19 06:37 PM | Reply

I am very willing to look at all sides of this.
So, if you have something useful, please provide it.

#67 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Read all of my previous comments. There's no collusion. Law is not like on tv. It's usually informal phone calls and coffee. And if the EPA had been settling improperly, there would have been due process violations they would have been sued over. But it never happened.

Just because you can't explain the light in the sky doesn't make it an alien because your neighbor says it is.

Just because you don't understand the work of lawyers doesn't make it a scam because your party wants to push a talking point.

#69 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-19 06:41 PM | Reply

There isn't a Minority Staff Report.

Then, why did you say this?

Then there is the Minority Staff Report...
#64 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Typically, if dissension exists the dissenters offer some form of corollary, not unlike a SCOTUS dissenting opinion. These can range from challenging some of the factual findings - to - agreeing with the facts but challenging some of the conclusions. I can't find any minority contradictions to this via Google. You suggested it exists. Now, you are scoffing at the notion of its existence. Please clarify.

Read all of my previous comments. There's no collusion.

I've read them. Condescension isn't an effective or persuasive argument. Fact is, none of your comments substantively rebut the findings in this report.

If you want to sway me, provide something tangible. I was serious when I said I am open to seeing all sides of this (I'll start with the Sierra Club piece Rcade linked to this thread). If you have anything else constructive to add, I'll gladly take a look.

#70 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 07:22 PM | Reply

Ah yes. Slaughter the source.

PowerLine is a bunch of hyperpartisan dishonest spin. Are we supposed to pretend it isn't because that offends you?

#71 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-19 07:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

PowerLine is a bunch of hyper partisan dishonest spin. Are we supposed to pretend it isn't because that offends you?

#71 | POSTED BY RCADE

Of course it is. If it contradicts any aspect of your narrative then that's the only thing it could be.

"Hyper Partisan." Use of that term is one of the reasons you cited for permanently banning Goatman from this site. Just sayin'

#72 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 08:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

--PowerLine is a bunch of hyperpartisan dishonest spin

I love ideological diversity. After reading the leftwing spin on the Retort, I go to powerline, instapundit, townhall, etc, to get another perspective.

#73 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-19 08:03 PM | Reply

"*___________ is a bunch of hyperpartisan dishonest spin. Are we supposed to pretend it isn't because that offends you?"

*Insert from the following

Daily Caller
Instapundit
Infowars
Daily Beast
Daily Kos
Media Matters
Alternet
Think Progress
Root
etc.

#74 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-19 08:10 PM | Reply

"Condescension isn't an effective or persuasive argument."

But it is an appropriate response to someone who thinks Powerline is an effective or persuasive argument.

So there's that.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-19 08:12 PM | Reply

--But it is an appropriate response to someone who thinks Powerline is an effective or persuasive argument.

You should stick to Teen Vogue. It's about your pay grade.

#76 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-19 08:14 PM | Reply

"I love ideological diversity."

You love disinformation masquerading as truth.

There's two sides to everything for you.

You'd have us believe the opinion that the moon landings were faked is every bit as valid as the opinion that the moon landings actually happened.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-19 08:15 PM | Reply

--But it is an appropriate response to someone who thinks Powerline is an effective or persuasive argument.

You should stick to Teen Vogue. It's about your pay grade.

#78 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-19 08:16 PM | Reply

#74

i wouldn't include Daily Beast on that list.

It's a flawed rag, to be sure, but I think it produces some quality stuff.

#79 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-19 08:24 PM | Reply

I think Snoofy is a monkey. Snoofy thinks he's not a monkey.

#80 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-19 08:24 PM | Reply

You think I'm a monkey?

I'm not really sure what to make of that.

But it beats being an elephant, working for peanuts.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-19 08:31 PM | Reply

I'm not really sure what to make of that.

Picture in your mind what shows up on the screen when a monkey bangs on the keyboard.

#82 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-19 08:40 PM | Reply

Oh, I'm Shakespeare.

Thanks.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-19 09:05 PM | Reply

#83 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

See what I mean.

#84 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-19 09:13 PM | Reply

Et tu, Ray?

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-19 10:50 PM | Reply

The Trump-Pruitt legacy shall be more glyphosate in your food, more lead and mercury in your water, more pollution in your lungs, and more radiation poisoning. In this way major campaign donors can enjoy higher profits, which is more important than mere human lives.

#86 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-10-20 07:34 AM | Reply

Then there is the Minority Staff Report... - #64 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-19 06:31 PM
There isn't a Minority Staff Report. - #68 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-19 06:37 PM
It's got to be difficult to be that dumb...- #64 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-19 06:31 PM

#87 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-10-20 08:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Powerline is conservative, but hardly as hyperpartisan as 90% of DR dems.

#88 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-20 09:48 AM | Reply

Right wingers have something that gums up the works every time they try to do something. It's called faith. For them faith always trumps science, data, and facts.

Example: Tort reform

The right wing believes on faith that malpractice premiums are driven by huge overpayments in malpractice cases and therefore we need to limit what a person can be awarded

They believe this despite the facts on the table.

There are states that enacted tort reform 40 years ago and severely restrict payouts in malpractice claims. Colorado for example. There are other state that have no such limits.

Tort reform proponents had promised benefits such as a decrease in defensive medicine, lower malpractice insurance premiums and an end to "out-of-control" jury verdicts. So did tort reform deliver?

A major study published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine confirms what multiple other studies have shown: tort reform has had no impact on defensive medicine. There has also been little impact on malpractice insurance premiums. Meanwhile, tort reform has caused actual harm by preventing injured people from obtaining justice, and delaying actual reforms, such as patient safety initiatives, that could save lives.

#89 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-10-20 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort