Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Sheehan: Kavanaugh Nomination Bad News for Park

West face of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington DCAt the conclusion of his visit to Bear Pond in the St. Regis Canoe Area on August 10, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer answered questions from press and local residents who were worried about Federal Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Senator Schumer confirmed that Kavanaugh would be bad news for clean air, clean water and public health in the Adirondack Park.

The Senator had come to celebrate Bear Pond’s recovery from acid rain and to warn federal officials not to backslide on clean air rules. The Senate Minority Leader said he was opposed to Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Kavanaugh was nominated by President Donald Trump to serve in the seat vacated by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. While few people outside of the federal court system had heard of Kavanaugh, he was familiar to those who have followed federal lawsuits over air pollution such as smog and acid rain.

He has a long and notorious record of siding with polluters instead of their victims, requiring downwind communities in the Adirondacks, and around the Northeast, to pay the price for air pollution created by power companies in the Midwest.

In 2012, while serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh struck down the Clean Air Act’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. In combination with the Acid Rain Program created in 1995, the Cross-State rule has brought steep reductions in the air pollution that causes acid rain and smog. It is part of the reason Bear Pond is looking healthy again.

The landowner on whose shoreline the Senator stood while addressing the media that day belongs to Dr. Edward Hixon. Hixson is a lifelong conservationist who has served as medic for teams climbing Mt. Everest.

Dr. Hixson told the Senator that Bear Pond was a lovely shade of aqua marine when he first moved there several decades ago. That was because its pH had dropped to 5.0 and very little could live in it. Without plants and algae, it was as clear as gin. Today, with a pH of 6.2 (over 10 times less acidic than in 1994) it is greener and a little murkier. That’s good. It is also full of fish again.

In addition, the Cross-State rule is responsible for preventing up to 34,000 premature deaths each year and for improving air quality for 240 million Americans. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says the rule’s public health benefits are more than 100 times higher than its compliance costs. So when Kavanaugh wrote a majority opinion siding with polluters because the costs were too high, the entire regulatory community gasped.

Fortunately, in 2014, six Supreme Court Justices overruled Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion and the Cross-State rule was reinstated. Notably, Justice Kennedy, whom Judge Kavanaugh would replace on the Supreme Court, voted to uphold EPA’s authority to safeguard the nation’s air quality. So replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh would make the court less environmentally responsible.

Judge Kavanaugh’s decisions reveal a tendency to limit the public’s right to access justice through the courts by adopting obstructive “standing” requirements, while at the same time removing barriers for polluters. By emphasizing standing in air pollution cases, the judge places a significant burden on the pollution victims. Victims must show they are being harmed in some special way, over and above the harm done to other people and to public resources and public welfare. This cuts down the number of potential lawsuits power companies will face over the 34,000 deaths a year they were causing before the Cross-State rule was adopted.

The Cross-State rule is the EPA’s tool for implementing the Clean Air Act’s “good neighbor” policy, which prohibits one state from causing another state to exceed public health standards for smog.

After rejecting Kavanaugh’s decision to vacate the rule, the Supreme Court sent the rule back to Kavanaugh’s court to fix technical issues over the costs of compliance for a handful of the 23 states whose air pollution is regulated by the rule. Meanwhile, he threw out New York’s State Implementation Plan for the 2015 smog standards and rejected a host of others as well. He told EPA to draw up new plans for the states whose plans he tossed. However, EPA’s new conservative leadership is dragging its feet, so we are still awaiting EPA action.

Kavanaugh has been enough trouble for the environment and public health in the federal appeals court. His confirmation would further tip the court into an anti-environmental stance that could harm clean air, clean water and public health for generations.

Photo of West face of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. courtesy Wikimedia User UpstateNYer.

Related Stories

Before John Sheehan joined the Adirondack Council's staff in 1990, he was the managing editor of the Malone Evening Telegram, and previously worked as a journalist for the Troy Record, (Schenectady) Daily Gazette, Watertown Daily Times and Newsday. For the past 20 years, John has been the voice of the Adirondack Council on radio and television, and on the pages of local, regional and national media.

62 Responses

  1. ADKresident says:

    You believe Chuck?

    Kavanaugh follows the law, if some EPA rule was done incorrectly he rules as such.

    This propaganda and fear mongering gets old.

    • Boreas says:

      SCOTUS is the final stop where laws are interpreted, then supported or shot down based on majority vote/opinion. It doesn’t matter if the law was “done incorrectly” or not – it is the majority vote that matters. All of the judges on Trump’s appointee list are on that list because they are expected to rule certain ways if certain cases are brought before the court. This is true with any president’s choices – their way of making their long-term mark on our society. This isn’t propaganda and fear mongering, it is reality.

      I firmly believe the appointment that was stolen from Obama in his second term and his subsequent lack of a fight will come back to haunt ALL citizens in the long run. Childish behavior has a way of biting you in the ass. Bad Karma…

      • Paul says:

        They should not be “interpreting” the law they are supposed to be deciding if the law in question comports to the US constitution. When Kennedy made decisions he was very good at doing this no matter what the substance of the case was. Others on the court right and left just rule based on their ideology. In most cases you know what they are going to rule no matter what the case is. That is so ridiculous. Kennedy ruled based on the law. Hopefully this judge learned some of that when he was working for Kennedy.

        • JohnL says:

          Right on Paul. Too much in the Supreme Court is decided by personal ideology. For me, it will be refreshing when ALL justices rule strictly on the Constitutionality of the issues before them. Justice Kavanaugh will rule that way, in my humble opinion.
          BTW Boreas, for you to say that it doesn’t matter if laws are done incorrectly or not is sad. Again, in my humble opinion.

          • Boreas says:

            “BTW Boreas, for you to say that it doesn’t matter if laws are done incorrectly or not is sad.”

            I was quoting the original poster. HOW the law was “done” is immaterial to the Supreme Court. They rule on the cases that are brought before them, not the process of how the law came about.

            “They should not be “interpreting” the law they are supposed to be deciding if the law in question comports to the US constitution.”

            Wouldn’t a judge have to “interpret” the law before they make a decision on it’s constitutionality? I would hope they do! That is what separates judges from officers.

    • John Sheehan says:

      I cite examples “resident.” So far, you have brought only mud to the conversation.

  2. gbear says:

    “Sheehan: Kavanaugh Nomination Bad News for Park”.
    On the other hand, maybe not

  3. Paul says:

    It’s a done deal so you better figure out how to convince him that you are right or how the laws you think we need will stand up to court scrutiny. Attacks probably won’t accomplish what you are looking for. I would try a little bit more of a diplomatic approach. He will be on the court by November. I think that there is a very good chance that the current president might even get one more SCOTUS seat to nominate. Especially if he gets a second term, and the opposition has yet to show us a coherent plan on how to defeat him. Mostly all we get are things like this, and comments like Shumer made at Bear Pond. The ADE headline read “Schumer Takes on Acid Rain”. He didn’t really seem to have any plan to accomplish anything?

  4. Katherine M. says:

    “He has a long and notorious record of siding with polluters instead of their victims…”
    In other words, Kavanaugh followed and interpreted the law already written on the books and did not impute his own personal opinion/agenda which has been widely accepted as the norm these days.

    To state that “His confirmation would further tip the court into an anti-environmental stance that could harm clean air, clean water and public health for generations, is nothing but manipulative rhetoric and a defamation of his character to say the least. Get real. No one wants dirty air and water no matter what your political affiliation is and there is no evidence that Kavanaugh is anti’-environment as you have stated, yet there is much evidence that he interprets law as it is written and has not legislated from the bench.
    If we the people want to protect the environment and waters, we must do it constitutionally, through legislation by elected officials that represent the people, not through the judicial branch.

    • John Sheehan says:

      The truth cannot be “defamation.” I cited cases in which he did the wrong thing for public health and the environment. You offer opinion and no evidence.

      Are you a political operative from another country, KatherineM? You and “ADKresident” don’t write like anyone I know or anyone I read on this message board. No accusations. Just asking.

      • Paul says:

        Foreign political operatives targeting the Almanack comment section? John you seem like a good man working for a good cause but this seems a bit wacky.

        According to the ADE story the average pH of bear pond is currently 5.1.

        Here you say that it is 6.2. Which is correct? That is a big difference. It is still a pretty “greenish” looking pond.

        • John Sheehan says:

          It was 5.1. It has risen to 6.2. That is a big leap, from mostly inhospitable to pretty close to normal.

          • Paul says:

            Thanks. The ADE story should be corrected it says – “currently”. 6.2 makes sense, I have been lucky enough to catch some beautiful brook trout in that pond.

        • John Sheehan says:

          OK. I withdraw the question.

  5. Bert Windle says:

    Mr. Sheehan,

    I am a senior citizen, spending 70 plus years in NYS and residing in the Adirondacks for the last 28 years. I am an advocate for clean air and water
    and do all I can to protect our environment, with this we agree!
    Suggesting that Judge Kavanaugh has a long and notorious record of siding with polluters is just wrong, he has in the past and will after his confirmation uphold the Constitution, that is his task, and he has sworn to uphold that duty! So you and Senator Schumer should review the facts and back your opposition with another argument.

    D Windle

  6. Paul says:

    So the senator didn’t paddle across bog pond (plus the tiny carry from St. Regis) to get to bear, sounds like they were driven in on Dr. Hixon’s road that crosses the carry. He has a beautiful home there on St. Regis Lake. Talk about a fantastic piece of property bordering the St. Regis Canoe area. Saying the pond is “full” on fish may be a little bit of an exaggeration. There are some nice trout in there for sure but you have to work for them! No doubt – a success story.

  7. Brian Joseph says:

    LOL fake news. If he is bad I assume Kagan and Ginsburg were deemed to be good……so tell us what good they have done for the Park?

    • John Sheehan says:

      Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion for the Supreme Court upholding the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. Only Scalia and Thomas disagreed with the rule. Alito recused himself.

  8. Greg Semmens says:

    Well I’m glad I read your article. It’s refreshing to read a facts based informative article instead of all the spin I see in print. Thank you very much.

  9. Mick Finn says:

    Sheehan, you’re so full of crap. I grew up in Glens Falls and remember when Finch Pruyn installed scrubbers to reduce air pollution. It was star-of-the art at the time and as technology improves, so will pollution reduction, as opposed to the absurd and impossible to achieve restrictions from the Obama administration. I also remember when DDT usage was ended. I also remember collecting water samples for the original studies on Acid Rain when I was at Paul Smith’s College. I now live on Chesapeake Bay and almost immediately after Trump stopped EPA interference we saw improvements.
    You’re a piece of crap fear mongered and you wear your land acquisition agenda on your sleeve.

    • Boreas says:

      Many of the Midwest Clean Air scrubbers are already installed, waiting to be turned on. EPA was/is holding that up.

      • John Sheehan says:

        Boreas is correct. The 36 dirtiest coal-fired power plants in the U.S. are in the Midwest and all have electrostatic precipitators installed. When downwind states are too smoggy to meet health standards (summer), they can seek relief from EPA by filing a petition to turn those on. It makes a huge difference for those trying to breathe (and see for long distances) in the Northeast. Until 2017, EPA routinely granted those petitions.

        In 2017, Maryland and other Northeast states filed petitions at the start of the summer smog season. Until the Adirondack Council, Chesapeake Bay Fndtn, EDF and others sued, Scott Pruitt simply pretended the petitions had not been filed. EPA now has until September to act on Maryland’s petition and until October to act on a similar petition filed by NY and CT.

  10. Bruce says:

    Ideology vs. Constitutionality. The purpose of SCOTUS is to interpret law as defined by the Constitution, not to rule on whether something is politically correct, environmentally expedient, or socially desirable.

    I don’t recall the Constitution defining the environment, therefore these and many other laws have to be judged based on their legal content regardless of their good or ill for the environment or the people who created them. Anything else is tantamount to the court making law or policy, neither of which was intended by the framers of the Constitution.

    • adkDreamer says:

      Bruce – I agree. The US Constitution contained: “…neither the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court nor the organization of the Judicial Branch as a whole. Thus, it was left to Congress and to the Justices of the Court through their decisions to develop the Federal Judiciary and a body of Federal law.”

      SCOTUS was essentially established via the Judiciary Act of 1789.

    • John Sheehan says:

      He was not being asked to rule on its Constitutionality. He is a federal appeals judge in the DC circuit, not a member of the Supreme Court. He was asked whether the federal Cross-State Pollution Rule was was a reasonable rule for carrying out the Clean Air Act’s “good neighbor policy. In 1990, Congress ordered EPA to stop letting upwind states pollute downwind states and cause harm to sensitive places like the Adirondacks. The rule was indeed a reasonable means of achieving Congress’s orders — and it took until just a few years ago to make its way through a barrage of lawsuits from polluters and coal companies. That’s when the Supreme Court overruled Kavanaugh, 6-2-1.

      • adkDreamer says:

        Misplaced comment.

      • Bruce says:


        “He was not being asked to rule on its Constitutionality. He is a federal appeals judge in the DC circuit, not a member of the Supreme Court.”

        Which probably means his opinions will be in a more Constitutional vein. If not, then he will be no better or worse than the other justices already sitting.

        I’m a firm believer that the more politics and personal ideology we can keep out of the judiciary, the better!

  11. Charlie S says:

    Senator Schumer confirmed that Kavanaugh would be bad news for clean air, clean water and public health in the Adirondack Park.

    ADKresident responds: “This propaganda and fear mongering gets old.”

    Fact is this administration has already proven who and what they stand for as they always do. It has nothing to do with propaganda it has to do with the old way of doing business ADKresident. The republicans are outright brazen about who and what they support which their flock will never see because I suppose blind faith has a solid hold on them.

    Take Scott Pruitt for instance, former head of the Trump EPA. Last year he reversed an Obama-era effort to ban chlorpyrifos, which is widely sprayed on vegetable and fruit crops and is scientifically proven to be harmful to humans. He violated federal law by ignoring science. He was supposed to protect the environment not hand it over to industrial giants. “The court has made it clear that children’s health must come before powerful polluters….” There is hope as the courts ruled against him. Good riddance he is gone but the battle is not over yet!

    We expect Kavanaugh will be no different and that he will go wherever the smell of money flows, which is where you’ll find smokestacks, power plants, oil refineries, ie….pollution from industries which we all know by now the republicans wholeheartedly (and openly) support. These kooks are the anti-environmental kings and we can expect proposals for deregulation left and right from all of them as they will continue to twist facts and science so that they may continue to consolidate their power.

    Did you all read back in July that “the Interior Department wants to allow under the Trump Administration…the shooting of mother bears hibernating with cubs, luring bears with bait and killing wolves rearing young in dens. It wants to give the green light for such activities at National Park Service areas such as Denali and Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve……”
    Who would support such measures? Hmmm!

    There are 10,001 examples to cite on what the neocons are all about and it has nothing to do with ‘good’ except but for maybe a few examples which I’m sure there are. This is not fake news!

  12. Charlie S says:

    JohnL says: “For me, it will be refreshing when ALL justices rule strictly on the Constitutionality of the issues before them. Justice Kavanaugh will rule that way, in my humble opinion.”

    Time will tell. In the meanwhile there’s a large group of skeptics that believe otherwise JohnL and rightfully so. It would be wonderful to see them proven wrong.

    • Bruce says:


      Have you by any chance noticed that nearly all the skeptics just happen to be the same ones who have been trying to tear down the President since he was lawfully and properly elected under the terms of the Constitution.

      • Charlie S says:

        You know Bruce…anybody who runs for high office deserves what he or she gets, some more than others. Why would anybody want to be President? To serve their country? I have a mansion for sale if you’re interested. Trump is easy not to like (he’s an outright idiot for one) and why should people not be allowed to speak up against him! We’re still allowed to do that in this country.
        Obama was lawfully and properly elected under the terms of the Constitution also and look at what he got for eight years Bruce. Eight years they gave him hell! I didn’t like the guy but he was better than the alternative in my book and that’s what we’re stuck with…one or the other always.

      • Boreas says:

        “…lawfully and properly elected under the terms of the Constitution.”

        Several million ignored voters would beg to differ. A president will ALWAYS get backlash when he/she doesn’t win with the majority vote. Ditch or revamp the anachronistic Electoral College and perhaps more people will vote if they think their vote really matters. As Mr. T. said, “the system is rigged” – then the rigged system got him elected.

        • JohnL says:

          You’re wrong. Their votes were NOT ignored. They were recorded in the context of the Electoral College and the President was chosen accordingly. The Electoral College is an excellent way of reconciling the urban/rural/mfg/farming issues in our country and the only thing that keeps our President from being elected by a few of the most populous, mainly urban states. Heck, they wouldn’t even campaign in probably 40 states if it was a popular vote only. I’m surprised anyone who has an interest in areas like our remote Adirondacks would even think this (popular vote only) would be a good idea. You see now how upstate issues right now are often ignored by our State government that is basically elected by downstate voters. Do you think a President that is elected by LA, San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Dallas, etc would make much of an effort to protect OUR Adirondacks. I don’t. Keep the Electoral College. It was a brilliant concept that has worked very well for 220+ years.

          • Boreas says:

            When the EC was adopted there were few states and they were mostly rural. But the states themselves didn’t have the huge differences in population that currently exist. The EC was put forth to help minimize differences bwtween states that weren’t all that dissimilar. It was reasonable until after the civil war. But after the Industrial Revolution, it needed either a major overhaul or simply be dropped.
            You need to explain to me why a 2-3 million vote majority shouldn’t be sufficient to elect a president. 2-3 million votes is a large percentage of voter turnout. Oddly enough, urban areas contain a high number of people of color. Coincidence that urban states are given less impact and rural, predominantly white states are given a helping hand by the EC? I will rail against the EC until I die. It’s usefulness ran out 150 years ago. But I understand why some people support it as long as the bias is in their favor.

            • adkDreamer says:

              @Boreas. Without the electoral college system, the centers of population would decide the president – think California & New York. All the other states would not matter at all. Remember we live in a constitutional representative republic, all 50 states matter: “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States” – Alexander Hamilton.

              • Boreas says:


                Don’t forget Texas as a rapidly growing population center. And also keep in mind, while many population centers may lean blue, they have MANY red voters as well. How these population centers vote should not be a foregone conclusion if a candidate is honestly appealing to the citizens and their real issues. The “voter block” argument defending the citizenry from the “blue coast” blocks is only valid with the EC in place. Today, emotional issues are manufactured by candidates to sway voter blocks in their target EC states while the most important issues facing the citizens across the country, including urban areas, are largely ignored.

                I certainly understand the type of government we have, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t change if it isn’t serving all citizens. As you are likely aware, Jefferson and was a firm believer of scrapping any system if it no longer serves the people. It is essentially the basis of our constitution.

                How many other governments around the world have adopted the EC system of electing leaders? Most people around the world view us as an anomaly with our ridiculous, expensive, 2+year presidential campaign circus, now calculated to the minute to gain as many ELECTORAL votes as possible. We still end up electing urban presidents from urban areas with urban (read $$) priorities – despite how they present themselves to the electorate.

                With a healthy government with healthy checks and balances (which we no longer are blessed with), a president would have much less power. Would it matter at all if the president were elected without gerrymandering and the EC? Could things be any worse? Why not streamline parts of the process to something similar to the British system? No-confidence votes and quick elections sounds like a system more adept at reacting to rapidly occurring world events that used to take weeks just to reach a president’s desk.

                A Senate majority leader now seems to have the ability to change long-standing Senate rules for political expedience. The Fathers set up the Senate to be the OPPOSITE of political expedience – the last stop to ensure reasonable legislation and Supreme Court balance. Those rules were designed to ensure reasonable legislation in times of peace and war. Changes in the Senate over the last decades have seriously eroded these essential checks and balances. When a Senate majority leader can change rules in order to stack the Supreme Court – another integral part of checks and balances, we are in big trouble.

                It is obvious EC and gerrymandering issues will never be addressed by a sitting administration that was just elected by these processes. Winning a presidential election has become a science, no longer based on the will of the citizens. A system of government that can’t examine itself for opportunities for improvement isn’t what the founding fathers envisioned. The EC is only one part of a larger problem facing the US government today. Everyone seems to agree our government is broken, but people seem to lack the will to repair or replace it.

                • adkDreamer says:

                  @Boreas. First, from Hamlet: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”, secondly you may have forgot Occams Razor. To oppose the electoral collage is to reject the bicameral form of our government, eg. the number of electors mirrors the number of senate & house seats exactly.

            • JohnL says:

              Trump won 30 1/4 states and Clinton 19 3/4 states. Also, 2600 counties to 500. Also 84% of the geographical area.You need to explain to me why all that shouldn’t be enough to elect a President. You can rail all you want, but you’re still wrong. Finally, I’m very disappointed you played the race card. I thought you were better than that.

              • Boreas says:

                “Finally, I’m very disappointed you played the race card.”

                Seriously? Try to tell a person of color that hidden racism and camouflaged Jim Crow ideals no longer exist in this country – especially today. We always seem to be dealing with ‘legalized’ voter suppression of some form. I believe racism SHOULD be part of the conversation. Racism is still part of our culture if you look for it. I doubt it will ever be eradicated in this country until racism – in all its forms – is eliminated from our electoral process. I am no fan of Governor Cuomo, but I believe this is what he was trying to say last week as well.

                • JohnL says:

                  When you say legalized voter suppression, you mean like having to prove you are the person that’s registered, i.e. Voter ID….right?
                  I know you often like to ‘explain’ what Charlie S says, but now you’re explaining Governor Cuomo’s speeches too. Interesting.

              • Todd Eastman says:

                Those places are nearly void of citizens…

                … tough concept, eh?

  13. Charlie S says:

    “He has a long and notorious record of siding with polluters instead of their victims, requiring downwind communities in the Adirondacks, and around the Northeast, to pay the price for air pollution created by power companies in the Midwest.”

    Yep, they put everybody and every living thing at risk just for political gain. They suppress science and violate treaties and if they can they will replace government biologist with an industry-friendly panel. The old conservative way of doing business.

    • Paul says:

      Political gain? What, the person is a judge.

      • Boreas says:

        He is a “conservative”, appointed by a (?fill in the blank?), tasked with carrying out a conservative agenda for the rest of his career/life. He is not a moderate who will swing toward progressive views from time to time. His “gain” is being appointed to the SC (usually a good gig) based on his past and anticipated future rulings.

        All appointees are political, which is precisely why Garland was robbed from the Obama administration. And this was done with little hope of Mr. T. being elected! Many conservatives were ready to accept Garland, but Mitch overstepped his reach, changed the rules again, and put the kibosh on a likely slam-dunk appointment. Not political?? Everything in DC is political and becoming more so every day. It shouldn’t be, but it is.

  14. Charlie S says:

    Katherine M says: “Get real. No one wants dirty air and water no matter what your political affiliation is.”

    What about industrial affiliation Katherine! Polluting industries? To them conservation does not create massive profits.

    • Paul says:

      Charlie, post the cave man era people have to make stuff to survive. Even clean tech pollutes to some degree (a large degree actually). Look at the pollution created by mining rare earth minerals required for solar panel and wind turbines. Most people are good people is her point, I believe that. Charlie, maybe you see all business people as Simon Bar Sinister?

      • Charlie S says:

        “Charlie, maybe you see all business people as Simon Bar Sinister?”

        You read and see what you wish to only Paul. You glossed over every thing I said.That’s called stuck in a partisan rut. I don’t side with any party just because. I side with whomever does right for the good of this earth and mankind, and I’m all for the little guy not the bully!

  15. Charlie S says:

    Bert Windle says: “Suggesting that Judge Kavanaugh has a long and notorious record of siding with polluters is just wrong, he has in the past and will after his confirmation uphold the Constitution, that is his task…”

    Yeah but he’s a republican and so far, almost wholly, they are notorious for siding with big industry polluters Mr. Windle and are outright bolden and without shame about it. This is well-documented! So we’re to expect this guy Kavanaugh is gonna be different? With whom Trump has picked for positions so far I’m highly doubtful about this. Maybe it’s just wishful thinking on your part. I’m not so sure but I hope you’re right….if he gets in.

    I want what’s right for this country Bert, for future generations. The environment is what we should all be about because this is the only home we have and at the rate we’re going there’s not going to be much left for those generations yet to be. I like what Teddy Roosevelt once said: “The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value.” Whenever someone says ‘A good republican’ Teddy is the only one that comes to my mind.

    • Paul says:

      Charlie, Richard Nixon was the conservative republican president that gave us the EPA that makes the rules we are taking about here he also signed into the law the Clean Water Act. Why wouldn’t he come to “mind”?

  16. james Racquet says:

    More Fake news

  17. Jesse B says:

    As someone who studies air pollution, I want to mention a few points for readers.

    – The EPA is in charge of carrying out the Clean Air Act, particularly limiting criteria air pollutants. These are ubiquitous hazards (particulate matter, ozone, NOx, SOx, etc) that transport long distances and cause a numerous health problems (and acid rain)
    – Since they travel long distances, pollutants from the Midwest drift over to the east
    – Each state (under the Clean Air Act) is responsible for making sure their communities are in compliance
    – When pollutants from elsewhere are constantly drifting into your boundaries, it a) affects your populations health, b) harms your environment, c) makes it difficult to meet regulatory standards
    – The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is designed to make sure areas producing pollutants are also responsible for limiting them, and not just those areas where they drift back to the surface (e.g. the Adirondacks)
    – Judge Kavanaugh’s decision said that the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is arbitrary and you can’t hold the states producing pollutants responsible

    All of the above are facts. Now as my opinion, the Author of the article is pointing out that Judges previous decisions are good indications of their future decisions, and Judge Kavanaugh has shown decisions that would directly harm the Adirondacks. Everyone knows that the Adks are a pristine place and when you have acid rain, it’s not from local sources. Judge Kavanaugh’s decision (had it held) would have essentially said, ‘Tough luck to you northern NY residents. It’s your problem to deal with and not a concern of those plants in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois).’ The Clean Air Act directly benefits residents of the Adirondacks, even more so than other parts of the country. We should want to support people interested in maintaining these protections, not those wanting to tear them down.

    • John Sheehan says:

      Thank you.

      • adkDreamer says:

        @Jessie B & John Sheehan. I urge both of you to read the record of Judge Kavanaugh’s decisions on each of the EPA cases brought to the US Court of Appeals. Jessie B’s statement “Judge Kavanaugh’s decision said that the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is arbitrary and you can’t hold the states producing pollutants responsible” is not a fact, Kavanaugh ruled based upon the statutes of CAA and concluded that the EPA’s Transport Rule could exceed the CAA statutes. John Sheehan – you might be surprised to know that Kavanaugh has ruled in FAVOR of the EPA more than he ruled against the EPA.

  18. ben says:

    To quote a not so great democrat “Elections have consequences!”!!!!!!!!! If you don’t like the President’s pick tough: SEE THE QUOTE from your last fearless leader obama!

  19. Charlie S says:

    ben says: “If you don’t like the President’s pick tough”

    Tough yes ben….for the little guy, the poor, the streams and the air we breathe. For biota and future generations.

  20. Jeanne says:

    Mick Finn, Would you please be respectful when writing your responses.