131–140 of 141 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The smog from China is not under the control of CA...
> The smog from China is not under the control of CA... Right, which is why it's not relevant.
Try thinking a bit harder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The smog from China is not under the control of CA... Right, which is why it's not relevant.
Not impressed with your response... it is entirely relevant if the claim about the regulation is that it will reduce smog, but the smog isn't even coming from cars in CA to begin with. Try thinking a bit harder.
Thinking a bit harder is good advice, you should try it some time.
In wickard vs filburn the govt made the case that a wheat farmer that grew wheat only for himself was subject to the interstate commerce clause. The reasoning was that he impacted markets by not having to buy wheat and therefore he should be fined for violating farming restrictions. The supreme court ruled in favor of the US govt. This expansion of the commerce clause could lead to trump being able to get something l…
> This expansion of the commerce clause could lead to trump being able to get something like this through That is not the strategy the Trump administration is using, according to the article. California is regulating emissions under a 2009 waiver granted by EPA. The administration is seeking to revoke that waiver.
In wickard vs filburn the govt made the case that a wheat farmer that grew wheat only for himself was subject to the interstate commerce clause. The reasoning was that he impacted markets by not having to buy wheat and therefore he should be fined for violating farming restrictions. The supreme court ruled in favor of the US govt. This expansion of the commerce clause could lead to trump being able to get something l…
Second: you still don't know what you're talking about, because even if there weren't federal statute explicitly covering this, California's rules apply to cars sold in California. SCOTUS has never reliably pushed far enough into expansive Commerce Clause jurisprudence to be able to strike that sort of thing down, and never ever will (hint: because doing so would create a legal precedent for federal gun control to pre-empt more-permissive state-level gun laws, something the Court's conservatives will never allow a hint of a possibility of a thought of an option of a shadow of a consideration of...).
Third: cherry-picking Commerce Clause cases is a really bad way to make an argument. SCOTUS has been all over the damn place on the Commerce Clause at different points in US history, and you can ultimately find a Commerce Clause case to justify basically anything you want to say, which is why any given example tends to be pretty meaningless as an argument.
In wickard vs filburn the govt made the case that a wheat farmer that grew wheat only for himself was subject to the interstate commerce clause. The reasoning was that he impacted markets by not having to buy wheat and therefore he should be fined for violating farming restrictions. The supreme court ruled in favor of the US govt. This expansion of the commerce clause could lead to trump being able to get something l…
This was from the famous Stitch in Time that Saved Nine. Since the US Constitution does not put a limit on the number of Supreme Court justices, FDR threatened to increase the number and stack the court in his favor if they did not rule in his favor. Given my understanding of how lower courts work on case law, this set a whole bunch of biased precedents from this one ruling. The ability of California to set good envi…
Even the same general panel of judges will about-face on it sometimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You picked the smallest US state to compare with, but if it's only market size, why not Texas with 29M or Florida with 21M compared to CA's 39M?
Because you can’t have 50 different standards. I mean you can , it just kills the market. It’s funny that you take exception with me using Wyoming, when your example was Rhode Island, the 7th least populous state.
Either everyone should get the ability, or no one should.
In wickard vs filburn the govt made the case that a wheat farmer that grew wheat only for himself was subject to the interstate commerce clause. The reasoning was that he impacted markets by not having to buy wheat and therefore he should be fined for violating farming restrictions. The supreme court ruled in favor of the US govt. This expansion of the commerce clause could lead to trump being able to get something l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It “helps” automakers. As it stands now, they only build to the California standards since it is too expensive to build two sets of cars. Until they do away with California’s stricter regulations, the loosening of regulations at the federal level has no effect.
Some California cities used to have some of the worst smog in the world. These regulations and exceptions were put in place to curb that. And considering the trade tariffs on some vehicles the difference could be a wash in terms of margin for car manufacturers. What happens to our clean air?
If they remove the exception for California, now the weaker EPA rules are what automakers can work towards. This probably saves the auto manufacturer money.
If they Trump administration has a defining principle, it's the removal of regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It “helps” automakers. As it stands now, they only build to the California standards since it is too expensive to build two sets of cars. Until they do away with California’s stricter regulations, the loosening of regulations at the federal level has no effect.
How many of those are American, though? Loosely regulating American manufacturers only would be more in line with Trump's isolationist tendencies.
There is still plenty of money in Ford, Chevy, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The smog from China is not under the control of CA... Right, which is why it's not relevant.
Not impressed with your response... it is entirely relevant if the claim about the regulation is that it will reduce smog, but the smog isn't even coming from cars in CA to begin with. Try thinking a bit harder.