Trump administration not so interested in states' rights when it comes to California

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

President Trump likes to cast himself as a champion of states’ rights. But he stops short when it comes to California and other liberal states.

The latest example comes from Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency, which is on the cusp of revoking California’s authority to regulate heat-trapping emissions from automobiles inside the state.

The decision to spurn California was long expected, and is one in a series of salvos between Trump and one of the nation’s bluest states. The president has also targeted the homeless populations in Los Angeles and San Francisco, claiming during a trip to California yesterday they're doing damage to the cities' "prestige" real estate and the federal government is aiming to do something about it.

But it fits into a pattern of Trump’s team brushing aside environmental concerns from a number of states — even Republican-controlled ones — where leaders stand in the way of the interests of the oil and natural gas industry, a key Trump ally.

“This isn’t just about California,” Gay MacGregor, a former senior policy adviser at the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality who has been critical of the Trump administration, said in an e-mailed statement. “Apparently, the GOP is no longer the champion of states’ rights or clean air.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/09/18/the-energy-202-trump-administration-not-so-interested-in-states-rights-when-it-comes-to-california/5d8111cd88e0fa7bb93a8b94/

No they're a bunch of authoritarian assholes.

[Johnny2X2X]

1. States rights is only about Slavery and the Klan

It goes back to the Revolutionary War and reconstruction. Specifically there were several decisions that said the federal government didn't have the authority to protect black citizens from the KKK. That's why States Rights is so popular with racist Cons.

[UTUSN]

2. K&R

[RainCaster]

3. Dorf says his action is illegal

From Dorf On Law, a great blog on all things legal.

Let's begin with the statutory text. It says that the EPA Administrator "shall . . . waive" the federal requirements and thus allow state regulation where state regulation is at least as protective as federal standards. There is no question that California's standards are more protective than federal standards. Thus, unless one of the statutory exceptions applies, Wheeler has no authority to revoke California's waiver.

The statutory provision set forth above includes three exceptions. Exception (A) disallows waivers where the state standards are "arbitrary and capricious." That exception could, perhaps, be invoked to disallow one or more new California standards, but the fact that EPA has granted the waiver for the existing California standards and that they have been working well in practice makes it very difficult to argue persuasively that California's existing regulatory regime is arbitrary and capricious.

Exception (C) disallows waivers for standards and enforcement procedures that contradict -- as opposed to going further than -- the federal rules and standards. It does not appear to be relevant here.

That leaves exception (B), which I quoted above: the stricter state standards must be needed "to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions." Prior administrations of both parties have routinely found such conditions. Is there any plausible argument that they have ceased to exist?

[keithbvadu2]

4. Big gub'mint is good when it is your own.

Big gub'mint is good when it is your own.

[Midnight Writer]

5. Part of Trump's New Mexico rally speech was promising to restore states' rights.

A classic Karl Rove tactic. Use the photo op and public appearances to pledge one thing, while in practice doing the opposite.

The calculation is that more people will see and believe the video than will delve into the actual facts.