All-purpose news and politics thread

[Iangould]

they were arrogant for trying to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law, and deciding that wetland created by A brush dam were somehow navigable water with no process to appeal that idiotic decision

So it would have been less arrogant for a bunch of public servants to refuse to enforce a law passed by Congress because, in their opinion, it was unconstitutional?

[mikekerrIII]

Forgive my ignorance, but how many unconstitutional laws have been passed? Also, is it always a matter of choice to enforce them?

Quite a few, and it is an obligationto avoid acting against the Constitution. The EPA could have avoided all this by simply having an internal appeal process instead of confusing themselves with the judicial branch. deciding your opinions are law without recourse is not something any agency should do.

[mikekerrIII]

So it would have been less arrogant for a bunch of public servants to refuse to enforce a law passed by Congress because, in their opinion, it was unconstitutional?

It would have been better for them to admit that the law was faulty when the case was brought to court, or simply have some idea that they were not above due process via internal appeals processes.

I can't criticize them for enforcing that idiotic law, but I can criticize them for defending that law in the appeals process, something they had no obligation to do.

[dupersuper]

You do realize that "Newt" "Mitt" "Rick" and "Ron" are all either nicknames or contractions?

Nicknames that those people themselves use, and that I haven't seen the poster in question use in any case: at least not without the last name.

[Nick Soapdish]

It would have been better for them to admit that the law was faulty when the case was brought to court, or simply have some idea that they were not above due process via internal appeals processes.

I can't criticize them for enforcing that idiotic law, but I can criticize them for defending that law in the appeals process, something they had no obligation to do.

I'm sure that a bunch of unelected government officials deciding which laws to enforce based on their opinion of its constitutionality would go over really well with the legislature. Then we'd have "activist" bureaucrats interpreting the law as well. And it's not the slam dunk that you claim, considering that their decision was held up at two lower courts. And yes, I do think that the SC made the right choice in case you were wondering.

Actually, agencies are generally obliged to defend the law unless somebody higher up gives them a pass. What is often easier is not bothering to enforce laws that might annoy people, but that gets them sued a lot as well.

[dupont2005]

Quite a few, and it is an obligationto avoid acting against the Constitution. The EPA could have avoided all this by simply having an internal appeal process instead of confusing themselves with the judicial branch. deciding your opinions are law without recourse is not something any agency should do.

But their opinion WAS law. It was on the books.

[invisiblefive]

apparently, mohamed merah has been shot by the police. I was still hoping he would be condemned to a lifetime of prison rape...
EDI: it's confirmed, he's dead.

[the4thpip]

apparently, mohamed merah has been shot by the police. I was still hoping he would be condemned to a lifetime of prison rape...
EDI: it's confirmed, he's dead.

Think about how the money that saves will keep the road outside your house repaired.

[Gryphon]

There has been a coup d'état in Mali.

[king mob]

The police are being balloted on their right to strike.

Police officers in England and Wales are to be balloted on whether they should have the right to strike.

The Police Federation has also announced plans to hold a protest march and rally in London in May over cuts to police budgets and what they call the "unprecedented attack on policing by this government".

The decision to ballot on the right to strike and to hold a protest march on Westminster marks a new level of hostility in relations between rank and file police officers and the home secretary, Theresa May. It follows their angry reaction to last week's report by Tom Winsor proposing fundamental changes in policing, including an end to the "job for life" culture in the annual fitness tests.

The Police Federation described Winsor's report as "deliberately offensive" and called on the home secretary to reject it as "ill-conceived, ill-considered and made up of previously-rejected ideas".

The Federation's national committee decided on Thursday to ballot its 135,000 members over whether or not they should have full industrial rights.

The staff association was created by statute in 1919 after the failure of the last national police strike organised by the unrecognised national union of police and prison officers.

A similar ballot in May 2008 led to a resounding 87% of those who voted demanding full industrial rights for the police in the absence of a binding arbitration process to settle pay disputes. A total of 60,572 officers took part in the last ballot – a turnout of 43% of the then membership of 140,000.

The Federation said that the protest rally would be held before their annual conference in May to highlight the consequences that cuts in policing will have for public safety.

"The Federation's 135,000 members will be provided with all relevant information and the ballot will be held as soon as possible," said an official joint central committee statement. "In tandem, the Police Federation will explore all the consequences, including the legal position, with regards to police officers obtaining full industrial rights."

In January 2008 more than 20,000 police officers marched on Westminster following the refusal of a Labour home secretary, Jacqui Smith, to honour an arbitration ruling on backdating a pay increase awarded to the police

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ma...ight-to-strike

[mikekerrIII]

I'm sure that a bunch of unelected government officials deciding which laws to enforce based on their opinion of its constitutionality would go over really well with the legislature. Then we'd have "activist" bureaucrats interpreting the law as well. And it's not the slam dunk that you claim, considering that their decision was held up at two lower courts. And yes, I do think that the SC made the right choice in case you were wondering.

Actually, agencies are generally obliged to defend the law unless somebody higher up gives them a pass. What is often easier is not bothering to enforce laws that might annoy people, but that gets them sued a lot as well.

Fixing the problems that the idiots who wrote the law would have been quite simple, just put in a administrative appeal process, But the EPA seems to prefer operating without any restrain on their whims.

[mikekerrIII]

But their opinion WAS law. It was on the books.

It turns out that they only thought their opinions were somehow law, and could extort compliance. they were proven wrong

[Iangould]

It turns out that they only thought their opinions were somehow law, and could extort compliance. they were proven wrong

No, Mike, it turned out that the law with which they had been complying for the past 40-odd years and which had survived multiple previous challenges was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Oh and that Court judgment opens up literally thousands of other actions by Federal agencies to additional litigation if someone thinks the appeal mechanisms in place are not an "adequate remedy".

[Iangould]

A senior Russian Parliamentarian who heads the Foreign Relations Committee of their Upper House and is close to the Kremlin says that Syrian government forces have to withdraw from urban areas first as part of the proposed peace plan.

Syrian President Bashar Assad must take the first step toward settling his country's yearlong conflict by pulling his forces out of cities and allowing humanitarian assistance, a senior Russian lawmaker said Thursday, in a statement that signaled a marked shift in Moscow's stance.
The comments by Mikhail Margelov, the Kremlin-connected chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the upper house of Russian parliament, indicated Moscow's increasing impatience with Assad and its eagerness to raise pressure on an old ally.
"Syrian President Bashar Assad must urgently fix numerous mistakes that he has made, according to Russia's official position," Margelov said, according to the ITAR-Tass and RIA Novosti news agencies.
Commenting on Wednesday's statement by the United Nations Security Council that spelled out U.N. mediator Kofi Annan's proposals, including guaranteed humanitarian access and the pullout of government forces from Syrian cities and towns, Margelov said that Assad should now act first.

link

[mikekerrIII]

No, Mike, it turned out that the law with which they had been complying for the past 40-odd years and which had survived multiple previous challenges was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Oh and that Court judgment opens up literally thousands of other actions by Federal agencies to additional litigation if someone thinks the appeal mechanisms in place are not an "adequate remedy".

If you read you will find out that the EPA refused to allow an administrative hearing, and that the appeal mechanism in place only allowed appeal after the fines were doubled. I was basically saying we will bankrupt you before we allow you to appeal and there is not a damned thing that you can do about it

What is wrong with additional litigation to decide if regulatory agencies have overstepped legal bounds? That is how things are supposed to work.