gehringer_2

NVRMD. I came back to the broadcast in the middle and thought they were saying Keller got hit in the face after Tork got hit by the pitch.....got it now...

missed it, where did he get hit?

🤷‍♂️

One factor is that there is presumption in law that when statutes enumerate things, that list is limiting. Now there are lots of different laws that give EPA mandates, and some give the agency more leeway than others for sure, that's why they thought they had a chance to get this through, but the problem with CO2 is that you don't even have the mandate for the objective. So for instance with SO2 the objective is stated - acid rain. EPA has lot of individual mandates - around tailpipe emissions, specific industries like steel, surface water pollution etc, but Congress has never given them one for climate change/CO2. And if you think about it, once you regulate CO2 you have a ton of major policy choices implicit in that - How much? How fast? You are going to be making choices that put some industries out of business and boost others, you may favor certain regions of the country over others. Do you want the EPA administrator to have the power to tell you to scrap your gas furnace by next year or that CAFE standards get doubled in 3? Those are policy decisions that need to be made at the political level and then those mandates passed to EPA for implementation/enforcement.

just to complete the thought on this: There is a truly desperate need to re-balance representation in the country so that the government can actually represent the will of the democratic majority on so many of these isssues. I don't know how we do that - some ideas that would help have been kicked around on these fora, but I don't think the answer is to toss adherence to rule of law to get what we want. I think we will be lost if we stop trying to fix the former and settle for the latter. Of course, there is a good chance we may to too far out of balance already to ever find our way back.

Yup - one of the commentators at OSINT made the good point it's much easier to destroy a handful of static ammunition dumps than find and destroy hundreds of mobile artillery pieces but gives you the same outcome. And it takes advantage of apparent Russian limitations in training manpower and logistics that prevent them from distributing their resources more diffusely.

when you set up a regulatory agency, you don't just say - "go do what you feel like." The enabling legislation defines the parameters of the agency's mission. It may possibly not be conventional wisdom, but EPA's mandate is not "Just go clean stuff up". It has been given specific mandates to do specific things in specific pieces of legislation. These mandates are often added to by Congress as new needs arise - that is the process. But Congress has never given EPA any mandate around global warming or CO2 as a pollutant in any other sense, so as bad as it it, the truth is that the Court was pretty much legally correct (IMV). In the US a regulatory agency has to have a legislative mandate that it can at least argue covers what it is doing. When the Dems couldn't get a global warming bill through they tried to argue that you could shoehorn it into EPAs existing mandates on very general grounds, but it was a stretch from the start and I'm not surprised a court, let alone this court, sided against it. And in truth, the very fact that the issue has been brought before Congress and failed probably made the court's ruling even more inevitable because the mandate has been more or less explicitly denied by Congress. What's good for the goose has to be good for the gander, you either want a system that follows the law or you don't. Just because short cutting the legislative process absolutely seems needed here, doesn't mean it's legally supportable doctrine. Heck, if we can't eventually make the US legislative process respond to climate change, we are doomed anyway.

This is where I don’t see how the next shoe drops. It seems you have to start new conferences to jettison your deadwood but acPAC12/B10 merger is going in the opposite direction.

The number of people is enticing, but their fandom is weak. I’d rather have Columbus than SF if I had the choice of two College football markets!

There have been advances in metal hydride battery life that may make them competitive for grid storage where you don't care about the weight penalty compared to Li.

Were abortion services free in Red states where they were legal before Dobbs? Were they just massively fudging the Hyde amendment?

probably going to need NGOs to fill that space.

I could see that one of the seat belts gets extended, someone in the back seat is leaning over the front seat, but beyond that I couldn't tell much. As a practical matter it would be really hard to commandeer control of any car from the back seat. Even if you get the wheel what do you do about the brake and accel? I could see him acting out in anger, maybe trying to physically abuse the driver or maybe grab a radio to countermand instructions given to the rest of the motocade and a witness to the whole event and then telling the story sort of 'shorthanding' the whole episode as tying to 'take over' the vehicle.

we need those magic video filters they always come up with on CSI that when applied to grainy surveillance footage suddenly make everything appear perfectly clear.

there you go. People need to get a grip. Many states, probably states representing more than half the population of the country, will end up as jurisdictions where various levels of abortion will be legal. All of this craziness being tossed around in the end goes away and the practical question is how to set up systems to get women who need abortion to where it is legal.

if a shooting occurs in the national forest, the county or state police have full authority to use all their police powers to apprehend, and prosecute that crime. They don't share it with the FBI. The limitation is not on the police powers of the locals, it's on what they enforce. Rules and regs that are a matter of specific relevance to the operation of the forest - who can take out timber, who can be in the forest campground and when, are enforced by the rangers - but those are not matters of local law, so the locals would have nothing to do with enforcement of those those things. That is the sense in which jurisdiction is shared. I will stand by my statement that the locals have full police powers in the nat forest to enforce local/state statutes. Abortion is now clearly a matter of state law and the State police would have full authority to enforce a State's abortion law in the national forest.

you assume that because Trump could get away with it, Biden can. But you know the rules are different. You won't get abortion as an emergency past a Federal judge and if you did this SCOTUS would overrule them quickly anyway. Progressives have their hair on fire and are throwing everything they can think of against the wall, hoping to find something that might stick. This one has a much better chance if they try it inside military bases, or even inside national parks, where Federal law is already the controlling criminal code than in an area like the national forest, where it isn't, which was MB's original and still valid point and thus the reference about Isle Royale national park, even if it was only mentioned by name by me after he had alluded to it by geographical reference.

if you call putting some facts and reference to a US forest service manual about police powers on the table a sale, you'll have to accept that it's being done at no charge.

Have you looked at attendance figures in the Pac 12 for recent years? I think most of these teams are bring more liabilities than assets.

no, not an uninhabited island in Lake Superior, a US National Park in Lake Superior. The only full federal jurisdiction piece of land in the State of Mi. I gave you the link to start to educate yourself, I'm not selling anything. You can either read and learn or not. No skin off my nose. Have nice evening.

AFAIK, CO2 is not in EPA's purview. Maybe they changed the law but when I worked in the chemical and energy industry, the materials - the priority pollutants that EPA had mandate over, were spelled out in the enabling legislation and CO2 was never there. The best analog to CO2 in terms of EPA's mandate would be SO2, which like CO2 is also a material that is not an immediate toxin or ground or water pollutant but is an agent that acts in a more diffuse way on the environment like CO2, but this exactly here the legal precedent works against regulating CO2 because SO2 regulation is specifically mandated in EPA's enabling legislation. I'm not saying the world would not be a better place if the EPA had CO2 regs, or that it isn't a horrible thing that the US Congress is dysfunctional, but putting agency administrators in charge of what they are allowed to regulate is a move that has just as much potential for abuse as legislatures overturning elections.

the only way you get legal abortion in a national park would be for the Federal Gov to pass a federal abortion statute that superseded state law even in a proprietary jurisdiction and I'm not even clear that would work because you'd still have to argue that law has something to do with the Federal purpose in owning the property as a forest reserve, but then you are right back to the need to get a bill through the Senate anyway, and if you can do that you can pass a national law for everywhere - you don't need federal land. As for an emergency declaration, if COVID didn't pass muster with the courts as an emergency, abortions sure won't. Look I will grant you till the cows come home Warren said exactly what you said she said, I'm just saying she's flat wrong *if* she took 'federal land' to mean 'forests' and not just 'parks' and other federal reservations with total federal jurisdiction. Pres couldn't do it.

perfect

Slava UkrainI!

the fact the Warren didn't make the distinction does not mean it is not a real one. To the degree she didn't make the distinction she was simply incorrect. See the link below for a primer. National forests are 'propreitary' jurisdictions. The fed only enforces federal statutes there that pertain directly to the forest service mission - like resource use, park rules etc. All state criminal laws are in full force in 'proprietary' jurisdictions. https://www.fletc.gov/territorial-jurisdiction-federal-property-mp3