EPA Asserts Executive Privilege In CA Emissions Case
Posted by
Zonk
on Sunday January 20, @04:33PM
from the interesting-use-of-term-executive dept.
from the interesting-use-of-term-executive dept.
Brad Eleven writes "The AP reports that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has invoked executive privilege to justify withholding information in its response to a lawsuit. The state of California is challenging the agency's decision to block their attempt to curb the emissions from new cars and trucks. In response, the EPA has delivered documents requested by the Freedom of Information Act for the discovery phase of the lawsuit — but the documents are heavily redacted. That is, the agency has revealed that it did spend many hours meeting to discuss the issue, but refuses to divulge the details or the outcomes of the meetings. Among the examples cited, 16 pages of a 43-page Powerpoint presentation are completely blank except for the page titles. An EPA spokesperson used language similar to other recent claims of executive privilege, citing 'the chilling effect that would occur if agency employees believed their frank and honest opinions and analysis expressed as part of assessing California's waiver request were to be disclosed in a broad setting.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Politics: States Set to Sue the U.S. Over Greenhouse Gases 440 comments
dnormant writes to tell us The New York Times is reporting that more than a dozen states are gearing up to sue the Bush administration for holding up efforts to regulate automobile emissions. "The move comes as New York and other Northeastern states are stepping up their push for tougher regulation of greenhouse gases as part of their continuing opposition to President Bush's policies. On Wednesday, Gov. Eliot Spitzer's administration is to issue regulations requiring power plants to pay for their greenhouse gas emissions, part of a broader plan among 10 Northeastern states, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, to move beyond federal regulators in Washington and regulate such emissions on their own."
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Pakistan model... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How does anything anti-Bush get mod'ed as a troll? With all the lying, incompetence, turning the Justice Dept. into a stooge fest, exempting themselves from the law, wiretapping Americans, trampling on the Constitution, and plundering the nation's treasur
Re:Pakistan model... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a mailing list, mostly populated by folk who post on Little Green Footballs. They told folk to register for Slashdot several years back. Whenever there is a political story they send out a begging letter asking anyone with mod points to mod down the most threatening posts.
They found out who I was and booted me off it a while back. I don't see why they would have stopped though.
If you think something has been modded down unfairly repost it. They have rather fewer mod points than they need to supress all the negative comments on the administration.
You think so? (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't doubt it at all.
Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
You people work for us, We the People. Any analyses you perform should be a matter of public record. Get over yourselves.
Furthermore, what is with "executive privilege" being used as a cover for bureaucratic malfeasance? We aren't talking nuclear secrets here, but matters of public policy.
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the plus side, I hear Dick Cheney increased the chocolate ration to 20 grams.
Seriously, November 1 can't come soon enough. The way things are going we're looking for a showdown between Clinton and McCain. For a change, we may have a win-win choice this fall. Neither's perfect, but I think either will result in a return to sanity and pragmatism, and result in a massive improvement over the current administration.
Unvarnished: (Score:5, Insightful)
EPA political appointee #2: "I'll check with GM to see it they'll raise their offer."
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone said it very well recently: The economy is all about money, and politics is all about power. Nowhere does the good of the people figure in or matter.
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Funny)
Although you probably won't remember it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Remember remember the... (CENSORED FOR YOUR PROTECTION)
Wrong, wrong, wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no such thing as a citizen. You are a consumer. It is your patriotic duty to consume.
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
I couldn't disagree more. Both are corporate shills who will keep the USA mired in Iraq for at least the next 8 years. They both are on their knees to the machine that is destroying not only the USA as a country, but the biosphere itself. They are both really really lame. Neither of them have a plan to deal with the impending energy crisis, nor do either of them have any idea how to deal with the ecocide that is part and parcel of the (according to Cheney) non-negotiable "American Way of Life" which is basically a practice of pillage and destruction. With a nice smiley face from Hollywood to make it all seem OK.
RS
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, that's wrong. Hilliary Clinton is an ambitious dictator in a dress. Bush may be driving the bus down the road to corporate fascism, but if you hand the wheel over to Hillary, she'll happily take all the power given to Bush and use it to go full speed to corporate socialism.
Did you know her health care plan will fine *you* if you don't get health insurance? This is not an aid to the people, it's an aid to the insurance companies. Wake up!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:4, Insightful)
England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue_gas_desulfurization [wikipedia.org]
Which has the most wetlands set back, Which country has the most acreage for environmental preserves, which country started amassing environmental preserves first,
Easy criteria for countries with a large landmass and comparatively low population density.
Which first world countries go in and clean up their chemical messes left behind by previous generations?
Pretty much all of them. Which first world countries make sure that their future generation don't have to continue doing this at a large scale ?
And what little window puppetry they have pulled has reduced their productivity to the point that they have the largest unemployment rate in Europe, about 3 times as the US.
Germany: 8.1%, USA: 4.8%, France: 8.7%, Greece: 9.1%. Yikes. Your numbers are way off. But that doesn't matter, as long as the USA are presented in a shining light, right ? Who cares about facts.
Re:In any other advanced country (Score:4, Insightful)
And a government mandate that citizens pay money to certain government-approved companies is somehow a good idea? Mandatory health insurance is just a new tax payed directly to the campaign contributors. I mean, sure, the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry love this plan - but it's worse for the people than *either* legitimate socialized health care or an actual free market would be.
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll never happen though.
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just out of curiosity, who is that guy? I'd really like to know, so I can vote for him (or her, and no Hillary is not the one.) All the candidates I see out there at the moment are liars and/or hypocrites, to one degree or another.
Obama? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Obama? (Score:5, Funny)
Stephen Colbert says he once fathered a Black Child, does that count?
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/74281/ [alternet.org]
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dennis Kucinich, if you are a Dem and Ron Paul if you are a Republican (poor soul).
Consequently, their tendency to tell the truth has all but eliminated either from serious consideration or even inclusion in later debates.
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:4, Interesting)
The whole "but Paul has a bunch of crazy ideas" cop-out is moronic. People should really just say they want their nanny state to stay the way it is. So you will vote for another lying, hypocritical scumbag politician.
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously an over-simplification, but chances are, if you don't like what they're saying, that's the truth. For example, does anyone really think lowering taxes will help pay off the 650+ billion dollars spent on Iraq? (Please save the "stimulates the economy" speech, I know it's more complex than either point of view.)
Now since each politician distorts different things, the choice isn't always clear and simple. Pick your poison and stick with it.
I want a President and Congress that will tackle the big issues, *then* the smaller ones. Here in Virginia, our legislators have wasted time trying to pick a new state song, and a bill to ban hanging anything that looks like testicles from trailor hitches. I can't even *imagine* what crap goes on at the federal level.
For example, for me, a candidate that is anti- (abortion, gay marriage, flag burning) etc... is missing the point. While these topics are important, they are individual matters and the US has serious community problems like the debt, healthcare, immigration, employment, etc... Get these solved (for which, I don't know the answers), then work on the others.
I know I will get shit-stormed by *someone* for using the above examples, so, not to inflame anyone's passions, but for the record, I am, and my wife was (she died two years ago):
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words he doesn't bear much resemblance to the candidates they've been choosing lately. He's probably got more in common with Dole than with W. I was personally quite impressed that he was willing to admit that it really was the Republican party that screwed up on the budget, and not the Democrats. In other words he's a candidate that is much more likely to steal votes from the Democrats than scare away more libertarian votes to other parties.
The Democrats right now, have made it pretty clear that they don't care about my vote enough to advance a candidate that is willing to pander to me. They seem to assume that because I'm a Democrat that I'll vote for their candidate. They seem to feel that they are in some manner entitled to get the conservative Democratic vote, and they'll be sorely disappointed if they advance somebody that is less palatable than the Republican candidate.
From what I gather, there's a similar group on the Republican side which is also looking to vote against the party to remind them that swing voters and moderates are such for a reason.
Ultimately, it'll be interesting either way; or utterly terrifying.
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Executive privilege is designed to protect matters of national security. Not political blunders or malfeasance. We're talking about automobile emissions standards, not plans for building an F-117 for crying out loud.
And California has a direct need to have higher standards than the rest of the freakin' country. Have you been to Los Angeles? *cough* *cough* The smog is horrible. And most of it is due to the rather large number of automobiles that operate on the roads there. Traffic sucks bad -- the streets are in constant gridlock.
You think LA is bad?? (Score:5, Interesting)
California doesn't need higher standards. California needs to start banning all old and out of tune automobiles, period. There's so many junker antiques running around that it's absolutely insane. Also, they need cleaner factories. They might as well start their own EPA while they're at it, because the one we already have isn't doing a goddamned thing. How do we get a vote to pull all of the EPA's funding into Congress?
Re:You think LA is bad?? (Score:5, Insightful)
A very good point. I've seen some studies showing that many older vehicles will literally pollute 100-1000X as much as a modern vehicle.
And, to an extent, California has made this problem worse by driving up the costs of a new vehicle - meaning people hang onto their junkers for as long as possible.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are right. But we haven't a means to get this message out to anyone in politics such that they actually listen and act. I suppose we could start rampant impeachments or try to force the issue with the politicians. but they seem more involved with th
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should they? If all you do is mutter on slashdot they've got nothing to worry about. Outside of the techie world how many people even know what a news discussion site is?
The problem about just saying you should have your rights under the constitution is that the people who got the opportunity to create it and then wrote it actually did fight, and many suffered and came over all dead. You don't compare well to them, except in the 'gathering to discuss their grievances' bit.
You need to do something about it aside from talk is the point I'm making.
I can't, I'm not American, but I would if I had to in my own country.
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
In this age of climate change hysteria, if you did research that ended up suggested otherwise would you like to have it out there with your name on it?
If the research is solid, then yes, of course, why not? If fear over climate change is just 'hysteria', then the scientific process will over time eventually push the truth to the service, and what scientific researcher wouldn't want his/her name associated with pioneering good research that revealed the truth? You think scientists would rather lie and be buried anonymously than reveal a truth that puts them ahead of everyone else?
It will be effectively impossible for anyone to debunk the research if it is genuinely good, because that's how science works.
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oh, spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody's saying that all such things should be performed in public, but the record of their dealings damn well should be. Period! If their actions are not justifiable, then we need and have every right to know that, so we can get rid of these assholes and put in people that are more trustworthy. The issue here is that an important matter of public record, one that affects many millions of people, is being hidden from us using a flimsy excuse and a misuse of "executive privilege." If that doesn't at least smell like malfeasance in office to you, you must have a problem with your olfactory organs.
Que? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Executive Branch? (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is not with whether or not the EPA has the right to use the executive branch's power of executive privilege; the problem is whether or not anyone, up to and including the President, has the right to claim "executive privilege" to avoid compliance with the law. The answer is, of course, that they don't. There's no such thing as "executive privilege" in the Constitution. It's completely made up. Unfortunately, the courts have been accepting that such a thing exists for decades, so now the precedent for this made-up power is set in stone.
Then why not just redact the names? (Score:5, Interesting)
So why not just redact the names and leave the statements intact? Oh yeah, that would actually make sense.
Typical Bureaucrats (Score:5, Interesting)
The law should be: By default all information is public. The government must PROVE there is an overriding security reason to keep something a secret. And not wanting to be embarrassed isn't good enough. Hiding information to save someone's political career is an argument FOR releasing the data.
It's their job (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's their job (Score:5, Insightful)
In Michigan we recently had an election where two candidates stood up and talked about how they were going to help the state's economy. One said he would train the workers to do economically sustainable jobs, and the other lied out his ass about how he was going to bring back jobs that our economy can't possibly support when competing with cheap labor from China. The liar won the election.
So yes. Things are seriously amiss. But make sure you point that finger in the right direction.
Do something. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sickening... (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, this just really sucks. The Freedom of Information act was possibly the most effective means to hold the government accountable in my lifetime. Bush and company have no respect for it and think that they can arbitrarily ignore it. In the words of Emo Philips, "They need to be tought a lesson". Run their asses back to Texas along with all their followers, cronies and hacks. I'm greatly sick of all of this.
Welcome to the Republic! (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, it's time for house cleaning (Score:4, Insightful)
Executive privilege doesn't exist (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Executive privilege doesn't exist (Score:4, Informative)
Hrm.
Here's the text of Article II that speaks about the President's rights/powers. From the National Archives at http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html [archives.gov]
Stuff about how the President is elected omitted.
Please point out the part that grants Executive Privilege, keeping in mind the 10th amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.)
Liars and Thieves Hate The Light Of Inquiry (Score:5, Insightful)
As with previous examples, it's not that they fear a chilling effect on candid advice, it's that the advice they gave wasn't for the good of the country. They advised the EPA to do what was good for their industries, and that's bad press.
In an interview on the Newshour http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june01/schorr_5-29.html [pbs.org] in 2001, Daniel Schorr was asked what he'd learned about government after years of covering it, and he answered:
If people knew that their malfeasance was going to go public some day, and be exposed to the light, they would be less comfortable tell all the lies they tell in the dark.
Just About Time to Vote California (Score:4, Interesting)
Another interesting fact is that California's state budget is 1/5 of the federal budget without the current spending on the "W.o.T" (war on terror) that's being pushed by Bush and his cronies. So overall, I think the combination of the Real ID act, the EPA trying to tell us we don't have they right to set tougher standards then the nation, along with all the other flak and shit from Washington is finally giving us the needed push to leave the nest.
Re:You know what to do now... (Score:4, Funny)
And yet, they're all running Microsoft Windows, in direct violation of that policy.
Re:Exxon Protection Agency (Score:5, Informative)