That is not what I said.
Sorry. I didn’t mean to imply that. I’ve edited my post to make my meaning clearer.
I think because what Trump did was on the level of an executive order, so that would be on Biden?
I do agree that Buttigieg should have been on the ground sooner, and Biden should have as well. But let’s not forget that the current SCOTUS has a hard-on for curtailing executive action, and saying that only congress can amend policy. It very well could have been a calculated choice to not get challenged by SCOTUS on directing policy, and instead depend on Congress to push for regulation that would pass muster with the current court…
The problem isn’t that you disagreed. The problem was that you were needlessly hostile to her.
Fair enough. Reading back I’m sure I was throwing elbows after the “Let me know if you need any more homework done for you.” from her.
The point is safety regulations don’t have to be done by executive order, and in fact shouldn’t be. All the regulations that were in there, like the new electronic simultaneous bogey brake activation systems, could be applied with a stroke of a pen by the Secretary of Transportation. That’s pretty literally his job.
My initial post was not well worded. However I also start throwing elbows when people accuse me of making shit up, and then talk about me like I’m not here.
Enough to blame to go around on this misunderstanding. My apologies for not wording that more carefully.
Sure, but as I noted, SCOTUS has been pushing back hard on decisions made at the cabinet level with regards to regulation… for example:
I think it’s safe to assume that Biden has taken that into account when giving direction to his cabinet secretaries.
If that’s what shaping their direction on this stuff, I don’t know, but it’s absolutely worth taking into consideration in discussing this issue. If SCOTUS has decided that most regulation needs congressional approval, this is gonna tie the hands of a more active regulatory landscape on the policy side.
Beau had some thoughts on that idea:
There was a fair amount of hostility in this thread in general, TBF.
Being jerks to one another (even out of frustration) doesn’t fix the problem.
I had the same thought (and the same source)
It doesn’t even help us to sort through the various, thorny issues of the issue at hand!
Nope, it just wastes precious time…
Ohio rail is a bit of a special case for Republicans and regulation. Due to the state’s history it has a giant amount of freight rail, in all parts of the state, with the third highest rail mileage of any state (behind Illinois and Texas). That rail is in bad shape, particularly in rural areas. Is the 'Train Tackles Bendy Tracks' Video Real? | Snopes.com We’ve also had a handful of other major high profile rail catastrophes with large areas being evacuated (Akron for Butane and Miamisburg for Phosphorus). This is one of those special issues they can’t ignore because their constituents are on the list of people being poisoned and they don’t have a big enough lead statewide to ignore it.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.