Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
9
... LastLast
  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispin View Post
    So your argument is an anecdote and a line from a movie where they time-travel? I'M CONVINCED!
    How did 2 supposedly unrelated accounts reference the same obscure quote from a 30 year old movie to make their point?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    Funny now as it was then, that line in Back to the Future, Part II when Marty proposes landing the time machine on Biff to stop him.

    "He's in a '46 Ford, we're in a DeLorean, he'd rip through us like we were tin foil".
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain N View Post
    It's like that scene in Back to the Future II when they're flying over Biff's car and Marty suggests landing on him. Doc tells him that the DeLorean would be ripped apart like a can against the steel bodied car from that era.
    Last edited by Nellise; 2019-09-19 at 11:16 AM.

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Fincayra View Post
    cars from back in the day were built pretty much like tanks compared to cars nowadays
    It's probably a myth that older cars are more safe. More of the force of an impact is going to be transferred to the occupants in a steel frame vehicle, as opposed to going to crumpling the vehicle in a new car.

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Fincayra View Post
    it's not really an argument, just that cars from back in the day were built pretty much like tanks compared to cars nowadays. I'd much rather be behind the wheel of my dad's old Buick (if it wasn't a rusting out shithole filled with lawn supplies) than a new car if I was solely concerned about safety on the road.

    Good for you! You're wrong of course by thinking that buick is safer, but good for you. Older cars are essentially a death trap during a crash.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    It's probably a myth that older cars are more safe. More of the force of an impact is going to be transferred to the occupants in a steel frame vehicle, as opposed to going to crumpling the vehicle in a new car.
    Older cars are not safer than modern cars. The crumpling has a huge impact on the amount of force the passenger takes.

  5. #125
    Merely a Setback Kaleredar's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    25,555
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    So one can argue states rights and on the other hand one can argue what they do affects all states. There is always Federal oversight, thus why a state can't just make anything legal.

    What are your thoughts?

    My thought is that your thread title is intentionally misleading; it should, in keeping with and accurately reflecting trumps political impotence, read “trump attempts to strip California of power to set auto emission standards”

    He hasn’t done anything but embarrass himself... yet again.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Fincayra View Post
    it's not really an argument, just that cars from back in the day were built pretty much like tanks compared to cars nowadays. I'd much rather be behind the wheel of my dad's old Buick (if it wasn't a rusting out shithole filled with lawn supplies) than a new car if I was solely concerned about safety on the road.

    On topic, I tend to lean right, and I'm against Trump on this one. State's rights is state's rights.
    Auto fatalities in the 1960s and 1970s were the highest in American history.

    Now, either people back then were godawful drivers compared to today, or maybe inventions like seat belt, airbags and 40 some-odd years of innovation by the auto industry and government regulation have made cars safer.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  6. #126
    Nope, its 30%+ of the GDP. Secession with the rest of the modern states is another way they can get rid of the US idiots like the Trumps.


    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Let's also be clear; the only way California in any way affects other States, in this, is because car manufacturers will build to the highest standard they need to; they have little motivation to deliberately build a shittier engine and dedicate production capacity to producing it, alongside a better one, it increases costs for little gain.

    And taking this away from California doesn't really change much. Canada already signed on to California's proposals; https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/can...ions-1.5190619
    And we're not about to listen to Trump, king of the ratfuckers, in determining our emissions policies. So instead of abiding by California's emissions standards, Trump's put the car manufacturers in the position of abiding by Canada's. That'll play out super-awesome for him in the long run.

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    My thought is that your thread title is intentionally misleading; it should, in keeping with and accurately reflecting trumps political impotence, read “trump attempts to strip California of power to set auto emission standards”
    If you view the source you will see that I only echoed the title given by BBC. I often, very rarely change the title of my source material.

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Nellise View Post
    How did 2 supposedly unrelated accounts reference the same obscure quote from a 30 year old movie to make their point?
    Are references to BttF obscure? That's like saying "throwing a hail mary" is an "obscure" sports reference.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Let's also be clear; the only way California in any way affects other States, in this, is because car manufacturers will build to the highest standard they need to; they have little motivation to deliberately build a shittier engine and dedicate production capacity to producing it, alongside a better one, it increases costs for little gain.
    You might consider that the reason the statute was written to set a framework by which California could be given an exemption is because the thing you are saying that would, on its own, be a violation of the dormant commerce clause as described.

    The emission standards of the other 49 states are permitted by Congress. They are lawful. It is the intent of Congress than those emission standards are sufficient for the American automotive industry. They gave the Executive Branch authority to give a waiver, or not, as it required. Had Congress never given that authority and the EPA never given that waiver, do you understand that California's emission standards would be struck down in court as violating the commerce clause?

    I mean, I hope so, it's incredibly obviously so, but I won't assume. But for argument's sake? At least?

    So California has a waiver... that comes from the executive branch per the statutory intent of Congress. That waiver is within the discretion of the executive branch. Always was. California sued the Bush administration and would have plainly lost but it was mooted when the Obama administration reinstated the waiver.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saucexorzski View Post
    Bad move Mr Cheeto, your fucking with states rights.
    Not even a little. California's emission standards are not within their state rights. They are permitted because they are given a renewable waiver by the EPA in a law passed by Congress. Had Congress not passed that law and there been no waiver given, California's emission standards would be unconstitutional as a violation of the dormant commerce clause. Read the 10th Amendment, states rights do not include things "prohibited by (the Constitution) to the States", and that includes state action that substantially impacts interstate commerce.

    Again, don't believe the actual lawyer explaining it to you. Google the dormant commerce clause/negative implications of the commerce clause and see the examples you'll find of case law. See if you can understand why California needs the waiver authorized by the CAA in order to set these standards. Because if it was truly a states right issue, California could have imposed those standards without the CAA's waiver from the EPA.

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    Are references to BttF obscure? That's like saying "throwing a hail mary" is an "obscure" sports reference.

    - - - Updated - - -



    You might consider that the reason the statute was written to set a framework by which California could be given an exemption is because the thing you are saying that would, on its own, be a violation of the dormant commerce clause as described.

    The emission standards of the other 49 states are permitted by Congress. They are lawful. It is the intent of Congress than those emission standards are sufficient for the American automotive industry. They gave the Executive Branch authority to give a waiver, or not, as it required. Had Congress never given that authority and the EPA never given that waiver, do you understand that California's emission standards would be struck down in court as violating the commerce clause?

    I mean, I hope so, it's incredibly obviously so, but I won't assume. But for argument's sake? At least?

    So California has a waiver... that comes from the executive branch per the statutory intent of Congress. That waiver is within the discretion of the executive branch. Always was. California sued the Bush administration and would have plainly lost but it was mooted when the Obama administration reinstated the waiver.



    Not even a little. California's emission standards are not within their state rights. They are permitted because they are given a renewable waiver by the EPA in a law passed by Congress. Had Congress not passed that law and there been no waiver given, California's emission standards would be unconstitutional as a violation of the dormant commerce clause. Read the 10th Amendment, states rights do not include things "prohibited by (the Constitution) to the States", and that includes state action that substantially impacts interstate commerce.

    Again, don't believe the actual lawyer explaining it to you. Google the dormant commerce clause/negative implications of the commerce clause and see the examples you'll find of case law. See if you can understand why California needs the waiver authorized by the CAA in order to set these standards. Because if it was truly a states right issue, California could have imposed those standards without the CAA's waiver from the EPA.
    I'm not going to argue its legality. Im arguing that i dont see this as cali changing car standards. this is just a place in the world setting its own standards and car companies who want to sell cars changing their product. If you don't like a product you don't have to buy it.
    "It doesn't matter if you believe me or not but common sense doesn't really work here. You're mad, I'm mad. We're all MAD here."

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Saucexorzski View Post
    I'm not going to argue its legality. Im arguing that i dont see this as cali changing car standards. this is just a place in the world setting its own standards and car companies who want to sell cars changing their product. If you don't like a product you don't have to buy it.
    Hey, by all means, I'm all for more of this kind of thing being up to the states. I've been more than pleased to see how Trump has brought out the nascent federalists in a lot of my neighbors on the left. But I'm presenting you with the pretty definitive legal certainty that it isn't up to the states in this case. The very fact that the waiver exists at all as a process confirms Congress certainly doesn't think it's up to the states. As the US Department of Transportation announced this morning I think, there will be one national fuel economy standard. It is within the power of the executive branch, under the CAA, to set exactly that policy and not give any waivers or exemptions.

    So there's either "California sues and loses", or "California sues and gets an injunction in district court, which gets appealed and then eventually California loses". That's pretty much the full range of legal outcomes here. Their only hope for their waiver being reinstated is the same as it was in 2006-2007 - a new administration giving it back to them.

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    Hey, by all means, I'm all for more of this kind of thing being up to the states. I've been more than pleased to see how Trump has brought out the nascent federalists in a lot of my neighbors on the left. But I'm presenting you with the pretty definitive legal certainty that it isn't up to the states in this case. The very fact that the waiver exists at all as a process confirms Congress certainly doesn't think it's up to the states. As the US Department of Transportation announced this morning I think, there will be one national fuel economy standard. It is within the power of the executive branch, under the CAA, to set exactly that policy and not give any waivers or exemptions.

    So there's either "California sues and loses", or "California sues and gets an injunction in district court, which gets appealed and then eventually California loses". That's pretty much the full range of legal outcomes here. Their only hope for their waiver being reinstated is the same as it was in 2006-2007 - a new administration giving it back to them.
    No part of the law allows the executive branch to revoke a waiver once issued. Trump is violating the law.

  12. #132
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    - - - Updated - - -

    Not even a little. California's emission standards are not within their state rights. They are permitted because they are given a renewable waiver by the EPA in a law passed by Congress. Had Congress not passed that law and there been no waiver given, California's emission standards would be unconstitutional as a violation of the dormant commerce clause. Read the 10th Amendment, states rights do not include things "prohibited by (the Constitution) to the States", and that includes state action that substantially impacts interstate commerce.

    Again, don't believe the actual lawyer explaining it to you. Google the dormant commerce clause/negative implications of the commerce clause and see the examples you'll find of case law. See if you can understand why California needs the waiver authorized by the CAA in order to set these standards. Because if it was truly a states right issue, California could have imposed those standards without the CAA's waiver from the EPA.
    This is correct. But you will not get the Trump haters to agree with it. It will take a court decision for them to accept it and even then, they will denounce it as a wrong decision if they rule in favor of Trump. State rights does have limits.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  13. #133
    The Insane Kujako's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In the woods, doing what bears do.
    Posts
    17,987
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    It's probably a myth that older cars are more safe.
    No, it is a demonstrable falsehood. Cars are now designed to crumple, a ridged car transfers the force of a crash into whatever soft thing is inside of it.
    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.

    -Kujako-

  14. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    This is correct. But you will not get the Trump haters to agree with it. It will take a court decision for them to accept it and even then, they will denounce it as a wrong decision if they rule in favor of Trump. State rights does have limits.
    Trump is breaking the law. He can not revoke a waiver that has already been issued.

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrt View Post
    No part of the law allows the executive branch to revoke a waiver once issued. Trump is violating the law.
    That's certainly the hail mary they plan to throw in court, I'm sure, but again, the underlying premise they'll be asserting is "because we have this waiver already, the United States Department of Transportation and the EPA now lack statutory authority to set a national fuel economy standard other than California's", and that's obviously a joke of an argument even typing/reading it.

  16. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    That's certainly the hail mary they plan to throw in court, I'm sure, but again, the underlying premise they'll be asserting is "because we have this waiver already, the United States Department of Transportation and the EPA now lack statutory authority to set a national fuel economy standard other than California's", and that's obviously a joke of an argument even typing/reading it.
    The EPA can set whatever standard they want. California is allowed by law to set their own standards(as long as they meet EPA's minimum) with a waiver from the EPA, which California has.

    Don't like it? Then change the law through congress. The president is violating the law.

  17. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    I man by this logic, Fed's should regulate what goes into textbooks in Texas because they need to make so many that they often sell to other states using Texas's requirements.

    :states rights" needs to be rewritten as "states rights, except for liberal states" because thats essentially the attitude here.
    Pssst: Even California doesn't actually believe this is a states rights issue or their only legal theory wouldn't be that the waiver can't be revoked. If California had a 10th Amendment right to set this standard, they wouldn't have needed the waiver in the first place.

    Newsom, Beccera, et al are just throwing out the "states rights" line here as a dunk attempt because they know it will be echoed and parroted by laypeople and legal dilettantes who don't know better.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrt View Post
    The EPA can set whatever standard they want. California is allowed by law to set their own standards(as long as they meet EPA's minimum) with a waiver from the EPA, which California has.

    Don't like it? Then change the law through congress. The president is violating the law.
    Like I said, that's certainly what they'll throw against the wall in court. It's constitutional law vaporware, but it's what they got. It might get them their injunction from a friendly USDC judge. But no way in hell does SCOTUS read into the waiver provision that Congress was intending to hand control over national fuel economy and emission standards, irrevocably, to any state that applied for and was given a waiver by the EPA, and that the only remedy for the federal government would be a statute to revoke a waiver that only exists because Congress said it could. It's nonsensical.

  18. #138
    Legendary! Collegeguy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Antarctica
    Posts
    6,955
    I always thought it was funny how states want better emissions but them tax you when buying the car because you pay less in gas tax.

  19. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post

    Like I said, that's certainly what they'll throw against the wall in court. It's constitutional law vaporware, but it's what they got. It might get them their injunction from a friendly USDC judge. But no way in hell does SCOTUS read into the waiver provision that Congress was intending to hand control over national fuel economy and emission standards, irrevocably, to any state that applied for and was given a waiver by the EPA, and that the only remedy for the federal government would be a statute to revoke a waiver that only exists because Congress said it could. It's nonsensical.
    California sets standards for California and California only. It does not set standards for the rest of the nation.

  20. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by Collegeguy View Post
    I always thought it was funny how states want better emissions but them tax you when buying the car because you pay less in gas tax.
    That's not all that odd. Gas taxes are supposed to be used for transportation projects, like roads, but if you never pay the gas tax but still use those roads you're getting a free ride.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    Are references to BttF obscure? That's like saying "throwing a hail mary" is an "obscure" sports reference.
    References to BttF 2 are really obscure, I've pretty much never seen anyone reference it outside of talking about the series. Nearly 70% of the TVs in the country are watching at least 1 football game every year so "hail mary" isn't at all obscure.
    Last edited by Nellise; 2019-09-19 at 01:51 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •