Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (7986)	3/8/2001 9:38:37 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Edit: That means it is constitutional, and that the statutory language does not require cost benefit analysis, not necessarily that it is good policy......

To: Lane3 who wrote (7986)	3/8/2001 9:38:50 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

Falwell warned, also on Beliefnet.com, that the program poses the threat of government financing of "bigoted" religious groups. "The Muslim faith teaches hate. . . . There's clear evidence that the Islam religion, wherever it has majority control -- and I can name a dozen countries -- doesn't even allow people of other faiths to express themselves or evangelize or to exist in their presence." In an exceptionally strong counterattack, DiIulio said: "With all due respect, and in all good fellowship, predominantly white, exurban, evangelical and national para-church leaders should be careful not to presume to speak for any persons other than themselves and their own churches." Blunt Defense of 'Faith-Based' Aid Bush Aide Rebukes Evangelical Critics of Administration Plan By Thomas B. Edsall and Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, March 8, 2001 washingtonpost.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (7986)	3/8/2001 11:33:38 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The Supreme Court yesterday unanimously upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to set new and tougher clean air standards without first considering the potential economic impact on industry, a major victory for federal efforts to control pollution. The first thing I would look at with Supreme Court decisions is the question of does the decision follow the constitution and the law. I don't see any constitutional problems with this decision. I don't know the applicable law in this case enough to make an informed comment. I suppose the the EPA does and perhaps should have the authority to regulate standards without regard to the cost, but I don't think they should choose to do so. I am not against the court refraining from ordering the EPA to follow some procedure to calculate the costs (to do so would IMO be judicial activism unless the law specifically calls for such a procedure and I believe it does not), but if costs aren't considered you run in to problems. Those problems can even include environmental problems. (If huge costs are imposed on people and corporations for minimal gain, then there may be less support for later more sensible regulation. Also if regulation is seen as unreasonable more effort will be put into getting around the regulations legally or illegally.) Tim