%%
Common pattern;
when someone love to talk= not the most accurate.
But CNN + NPR is among the most fake of the fake news,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
We care about state rights they said...
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
Common pattern;
when someone love to talk= not the most accurate.
But CNN + NPR is among the most fake of the fake news,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
%%
Well CA tends to be so wrong for so long; fight the good fight.
Besides as the gas milage gets better; some whined about less state gas tax collected!!
How can Donnie hold all these "L's" with such tiny hands?:
https://www.autoweek.com/news/indus...eals-court-rules-to-keep-cafe-penalties-high/
Appeals Court Rules To Keep CAFE Penalties High
The Trump administration tried several times to roll back penalties for automakers exceeding corporate average fuel economy standards. States went their own way.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the Trump administration on Monday, reversing a recent agency rule that sought to overturn an Obama-era increase to the penalty for failing to meet the base rate for fuel economy standards. The NHTSA, in 2019, said the language “civil monetary penalty” was ambiguous under the statute. The Second Circuit now ruled that it wasn’t.
Environmental groups, most notably the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists, wanted to keep the Obama era rules because the penalties have only been increased once over the past four decades, in 1997, going from from $5 to $5.50 per vehicle the manufacturer makes in the U.S. Due to inflation, those fines lost 75% of their value.
"The statutory purpose of the Improvements Act is to adjust civil monetary penalties to keep pace with inflation," the three-judge panel wrote in a 3-0 decision, noting that inflation "can take the bite out of fines."
Holy backfire batman (yes pun intended):
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/california-governor-gavin-newsom-bans-174438751.html
California Governor Gavin Newsom Bans Sale Of Gas-Powered Cars In State By 2035, Issues Executive Order To “Radically Change” Energy Consumption In State
“We need bold action,” said California Governor Gavin Newsom on Wednesday. Shortly before that statement, Newsom issued an executive order mandating that all new passenger vehicles sold in the state to be zero-emission by 2035.
The governor said bluntly, “CA is phasing out the internal combustion engine. By 2035 every new car sold in CA will be an emission free vehicle.”
“You can still keep your internal combustion cars,” said the governor. “You can still trade them, sell them [used]. We are not taking them away.”
“This is the most impactful step our state can take to fight climate change,” Newsom continued. “For too many decades, we have allowed cars to pollute the air that our children and families breathe. You deserve to have a car that doesn’t give your kids asthma. Our cars shouldn’t make wildfires worse – and create more days filled with smoky air. Cars shouldn’t melt glaciers or raise sea levels threatening our cherished beaches and coastlines.”
In its statement, the governor’s office maintained that the transition “would achieve more than a 35 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and an 80 percent improvement in oxides of nitrogen emissions from cars statewide.”
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/21/us/trump-biden-election
In a 5-to-3 ruling, the Supreme Court blocks the use of curbside or ‘drive-up’ voting in Alabama.
The vote was 5 to 3, with the court’s more conservative members in the majority.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan, said the state’s policy discriminated against older and disabled voters.
“If those vulnerable voters wish to vote in person,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, “they must wait inside, for as long as it takes, in a crowd of fellow voters whom Alabama does not require to wear face coverings,” referring to masks that help mitigate the spread of the coronavirus.
She quoted from the testimony of one of the plaintiffs, Howard Porter Jr., a Black man in his 70s with asthma and Parkinson’s disease, who recalled that his ancestors had died for the right to vote. “And while I don’t mind dying to vote,” he said, “I think we’re past that — we’re past that time.”
In a 5-to-3 ruling, the Supreme Court blocks the use of curbside or ‘drive-up’ voting in Alabama.
The vote was 5 to 3, with the court’s more conservative members in the majority.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan, said the state’s policy discriminated against older and disabled voters.
“If those vulnerable voters wish to vote in person,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, “they must wait inside, for as long as it takes, in a crowd of fellow voters whom Alabama does not require to wear face coverings,” referring to masks that help mitigate the spread of the coronavirus.
She quoted from the testimony of one of the plaintiffs, Howard Porter Jr., a Black man in his 70s with asthma and Parkinson’s disease, who recalled that his ancestors had died for the right to vote. “And while I don’t mind dying to vote,” he said, “I think we’re past that — we’re past that time.”