RSN Fundraising Banner
On Environmental Record, Did Kavanaugh Lie to Senate?
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=49082"><span class="small">Scott Faber, EWG</span></a>   
Saturday, 08 September 2018 08:13

Faber writes: "In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh grossly misrepresented his record on the environment."

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. (photo: AP)
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. (photo: AP)


On Environmental Record, Did Kavanaugh Lie to Senate?

By Scott Faber, EWG

08 September 18

 

n testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh grossly misrepresented his record on the environment.

Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to fill the court’s critical swing seat, cited four cases as evidence of his willingness to rule against industry to protect the environment.

But in one of those cases, Kavanaugh actually ruled in favor of weakening air quality rules for cement plants. In another, Kavanaugh doubled down on his position that the Environmental Protection Agency lacks the legal authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. In a third case, Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion laid the groundwork for challenges of EPA regulations by polluting industries.

What’s more important are the cases he failed to mention. The fact is that in 16 of 18 cases, Kavanaugh has ruled in favor of more air and water pollution, and in 17 of 18 cases, he has ruled to weaken protection for endangered species.

So, when it comes to the environment, Judge Kavanaugh has ruled for industry 32 out of 35 times. That’s good news for industry, but really bad news for the rest of us.

Kavanaugh has ruled that the EPA lacks the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. He ruled against regulating cross-state air pollution. He ruled in favor of dumping coal waste and dumping hazardous waste. He ruled that it’s okay for factory farms to foul the air of their neighbors.

When the Trump administration sought to delay rules designed to reduce climate-changing emissions of methane, Kavanaugh sided with polluters. When the EPA sought to replace fluorinated chemicals known as HFCs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, he complained that the proposed rule pulled the rug out from under polluters – even though replacement chemicals are readily available. Kavanaugh also supported giving large plants and factories more time to comply with greenhouse gas rules.

In some cases, Kavanaugh has adopted the view that the EPA must always weigh the costs to polluters against the benefits to public health, regardless of Congressional direction. When the EPA was proposing to regulate mercury emissions, Kavanaugh argued that the EPA was obligated to consider the costs of regulatory compliance to polluters.

Likewise, when the EPA proposed to apportion cross-state pollution, Kavanaugh sided with industry by advocating for the regulation that is least costly to industry, not most protective of public health.

In another case, Kavanaugh argued that the EPA had failed to consider the costs to a coal company dumping mine waste into streams, even though the agency had no obligation to consider cost. In one case, Kavanaugh sought to underestimate the public health benefits of reducing mercury pollution by discounting other benefits, like reducing particulate matter.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+11 # tsyganka 2018-09-08 10:38
Kavanaugh has a hideous record -- anti-woman, anti-union, anti-consumer, anti-privacy, anti-civil rights, anti-human rights, anti-environmen t, anti-net neutrality, pro-torture, pro-war, pro-monopolies, and pro-corporation in every nasty respect. Moreover, he wants the power of all three branches of government consolidated in the executive. He's a gods-damned fascist sociopath.

He was vetted by Leonard Leo/the Federalist Society for being anti-Roe v Wade. Like Leo, he's also an unhinged religionist.

Public Citizens 50-page analysis of the 101 split decision cases for which Kavanaugh wrote an opinion is here: https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/kavanaugh-split-decisions-report.pdf

Mother Jones's summary of that analysis is here: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/08/study-brett-kavanaugh-inevitably-rules-for-whoever-is-more-powerful/
 
 
+3 # economagic 2018-09-08 19:48
Ah, so his legal philosophy is to comfort the comfortable and afflict the already afflicted. No way anyone could EVER have seen that coming.
 
 
+1 # PABLO DIABLO 2018-09-08 22:55
Sounds like he is "perfect" for the Republican Party.
Time to VOTE folks in November. More important than ever to get Progressives in office to start cleaning up this mess.
 
 
0 # tclose 2018-09-09 08:35
This is a continuance of Trump coming up with far right candidates that he knows will be unacceptable to Democratic Senators, and progressive people generally. This is his typically nasty way of sticking it to those voters - his retaliation against the 3M more voters who voted for Hillary instead of him in the 2016 election.

He never gets over a grudge.
 
 
+1 # Texas Aggie 2018-09-09 18:01
Did he lie to the Senate?

I assume that question is rhetorical because you find him perjuring himself under oath so often when you look into his history. It got him this far so there is no reason it won't get him even further.