Trump vs. California

[Jeff Lebowski]

So it appears that Trump is moving to revoke California's authority to set emissions standards on cars that differ from federal standards.

https://www.deseret.com/2019/9/18/20...Uko2xcb6becFT8

President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that his administration is revoking California’s authority to set auto mileage standards stricter than those issued by federal regulators, a move critics said would result in less fuel efficient cars that create more planet-warming pollution.

I think I side with Trump on this one. California is large enough that it can influence overall auto production, thus hijacking our national policies. California may be right in the long run, but should one state be able to exert this much power over the industry? Why not come to a national consensus?

[Applejack]

So it appears that Trump is moving to revoke California's authority to set emissions standards on cars that differ from federal standards.

https://www.deseret.com/2019/9/18/20...Uko2xcb6becFT8



I think I side with Trump on this one. California is large enough that it can influence overall auto production, thus hijacking our national policies. California may be right in the long run, but should one state be able to exert this much power over the industry? Why not come to a national consensus?

Anti-state's rights, I see.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Anti-state's rights, I see.

I guess so.

I also greatly resent California legislature attempting to destroy amateur college sports.

[falafel]

Isn't this classic federal preemption? Not sure why California has been able to do this for this long

[creekster]

Isn't this classic federal preemption? Not sure why California has been able to do this for this long

There was some sort of congressional exemption granted back in the 70s. I am not sure how Trump can decide to revoke that exemption, unless the exemption was really administrative, although that seems unlikely to me. I gather he wants to roll back the Obama-era rules that increase fuel efficiency requirements in the the next decade or so and he knows he must also make CA roll back its own regulations for that EPA change to take effect in the industry.

[falafel]

There was some sort of congressional exemption granted back in the 70s. I am not sure how Trump can decide to revoke that exemption, unless the exemption was really administrative, although that seems unlikely to me. I gather he wants to roll back the Obama-era rules that increase fuel efficiency requirements in the the next decade or so and he knows he must also make CA roll back its own regulations for that EPA change to take effect in the industry.

The article describes it as a "waiver" that CA was given. Seems like that is something that could be rolled back administratively. I'm not sure what CA can argue in response.

[creekster]

The article describes it as a "waiver" that CA was given. Seems like that is something that could be rolled back administratively. I'm not sure what CA can argue in response.

California will have a couple of responses, I would think:

1. Trump should be impeached

2. Trump is Hitler

3. We will die in the next few weeks from existentially threatening climate change unless California regulations are maintained.

Nothing else will matter, in their eyes.

[Jeff Lebowski]

California will have a couple of responses, I would think:

1. Trump should be impeached

2. Trump is Hitler

3. We will die in the next few weeks from existentially threatening climate change unless California regulations are maintained.

Nothing else will matter, in their eyes.

That seems to be the response thus far. Seeing very little argument regarding the legal basis for a California exception.

[wapiti]

That seems to be the response thus far. Seeing very little argument regarding the legal basis for a California exception.

I'm for anything that limits California's ability to use its market power to put bad regulations on industry. Prop 65 is the worst offender. I wish Trump would target that abomination.

[BigFatMeanie]

I guess so.

I also greatly resent California legislature attempting to destroy amateur college sports.

I'm actually on Team California with respect to the NCAA. If the NCAA wasn't such a completely hypocritical, corrupt, and morally bankrupt organization, and if they didn't turn a blind eye to the blue bloods while scapegoating schools like BYU, I might think differently. But amateur college sports as administered by the NCAA is a complete and total scam so I say burn it down.

EDIT: So if California can manage to blow up the farce that is the NCAA, I say, "great!". But for everything else, California can ESAD.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm actually on Team California with respect to the NCAA. If the NCAA wasn't such a completely hypocritical, corrupt, and morally bankrupt organization, and if they didn't turn a blind eye to the blue bloods while scapegoating schools like BYU, I might think differently. But amateur college sports as administered by the NCAA is a complete and total scam so I say burn it down.

EDIT: So if California can manage to blow up the farce that is the NCAA, I say, "great!". But for everything else, California can ESAD.

But that particular bomb will destroy college athletics as collateral damage.

[Moliere]

I'm actually on Team California with respect to the NCAA. If the NCAA wasn't such a completely hypocritical, corrupt, and morally bankrupt organization, and if they didn't turn a blind eye to the blue bloods while scapegoating schools like BYU, I might think differently. But amateur college sports as administered by the NCAA is a complete and total scam so I say burn it down.

EDIT: So if California can manage to blow up the farce that is the NCAA, I say, "great!". But for everything else, California can ESAD.

Agree. Athletes should be able to make money off their likeness. The CA bill doesn’t even result in schools paying athletes so the schools won’t suffer much monetarily.

Sure, it’ll destroy college football and basketball as we know it, but let’s not kid ourselves that it hasn’t already been destroyed. Kids are paid already one way or another. Maybe we’ll end up with a college league where kids are able to profit off their likeness and one where they aren’t.

[LVAllen]

Isn't this classic federal preemption? Not sure why California has been able to do this for this long

Because the Clean Air Act of 1970 expressly directs the EPA to grant a waiver to a state with stricter emissions standards unless certain findings are made after a notice and comment period. 42 USC 7543(b)(1) ("The Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, waive application of this section to any State...") The required findings are that (a) the determination of the State that their standards will meet or beat federal standards is arbitrary and capricious, (b) that the state doesn't need the standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or (c) the State standards and enforcement aren't consistent with the federal regulations.

Here's the thing, though. There's no authority to revoke the waiver once granted. At bare minimum, I would expect that any procedure to revoke the waiver would need the same notice and comment period as the original.

As per usual, Trump is talking out of his ass and directing heads of agencies to violate the law.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Agree. Athletes should be able to make money off their likeness. The CA bill doesn’t even result in schools paying athletes so the schools won’t suffer much monetarily.

Sure, it’ll destroy college football and basketball as we know it, but let’s not kid ourselves that it hasn’t already been destroyed. Kids are paid already one way or another. Maybe we’ll end up with a college league where kids are able to profit off their likeness and one where they aren’t.

Geez. Crazy talk.

[falafel]

I'm for anything that limits California's ability to use its market power to put bad regulations on industry. Prop 65 is the worst offender. I wish Trump would target that abomination.

But, it's KNOWN to the state of California.