Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCan the Con be sued for what he's doing to the EPA? I'm sure there's standing by people
like those in Flint where the gov't failed to maintain clean drinking water, or some other provable action, or inaction of the Gov't.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 2545 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Can the Con be sued for what he's doing to the EPA? I'm sure there's standing by people (Original Post)
napi21
Mar 2017
OP
In 2009, the Supreme Court found that the EPA is required to regulate greenhouse gases
mythology
Mar 2017
#7
just as Obama's original EO was, to the point that it was NEVER fully implemented
Gabi Hayes
Mar 2017
#4
brooklynite
(94,588 posts)1. Simple Answer: no.
There is no constitutional right to clean water or clean air. Policy choices are not subject to civil lawsuit.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,721 posts)3. But there are litigable issues about how and why this was done.
The Administrative Procedures Act requires certain procedures to repeal rules as well as create them.
mythology
(9,527 posts)7. In 2009, the Supreme Court found that the EPA is required to regulate greenhouse gases
due to greenhouse gases being a public health threat. Pruitt is actually getting backlash from some on the right for not trying to overturn the endangerment finding because Pruitt thinks it would be legally difficult to do.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/pruitt-climate-change-236572
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,721 posts)2. On Rachel Maddow's show she said this EO will be in litigation
for a long time.
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)4. just as Obama's original EO was, to the point that it was NEVER fully implemented
wonder how long it'll take
onecaliberal
(32,861 posts)5. I'm fairly certain there are laws.
Jonny Appleseed
(960 posts)6. Yes