"Harry K" wrote in message
...
On Mar 23, 2:25 pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in...
On Mar 23, 12:18 pm, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:34:34 -0400, "Robert Green"

stuff snipped

Now the winner can contest the EPA for a sunny day in court.

Does the EPA have some administrative remedy, instead of some bean
counter having final word. Otherwise this should not have gotten into
court?

they don't seem to have had one (and for sure don't now - not
needed). That case drug on fr several years until it got to the
Supremes who pointed out clearly that becasue a beurocrat says
something, that ain't good enough.

Harry, I admire the fact that you believe people will get a better outcome
from a judicial trial. However, my sister's a judge and I can assure you,
she can do bureaucracy like nobody's business. The problem is often
expressed as "they wouldn't arrest him if he wasn't guilty." Judges often
side with the government that also signs their paychecks. It's a pretty
common human failing.

The changes required to the EPA's "reach" have to come at the statutory
level. At forty plus years of age, the EPA is about due for a
top-to-bottom
effectiveness review. I don't favor eliminating them because they have
made
tremendous strides in cleaning our air and water. I think we're both old
enough to remember rivers catching fire from industrial pollution. That
said, I do favor making sure they haven't overflowed their banks and
gotten
into areas they shouldn't be in.

--
Bobby G.

You must have missed my post where I said my bet is that they will (the
plaintiffs) will loose eventually.

Yep, I missed it. Sorry. I guess we agree it's not as big a leap as it
should be. I'm not even sure the EPA should have any authority over private
citizens and their homesteads. Most massive pollution is caused by
corporate entities.

--
Bobby G.