Home | About | Donate

Advocacy Groups Sue to Block Trump's "One-In, Two-Out" Regulations Order


Advocacy Groups Sue to Block Trump's "One-In, Two-Out" Regulations Order

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

A coalition of progressive groups filed suit on Wednesday to block President Donald Trump's executive order instructing federal agencies to roll back two regulations for every new one implemented.


Tweetle-Dumb is living proof of what I've been saying for years – "Only TWITS Twitter!"


We can have a Law forbidding "Motor Oil" being poured into the River.

We can have a Law forbidding "Paint" being poured into the River.

But NOW, in order to enact a Law forbidding "Mercury" being poured into the River, we must "deregulate" the Law protecting the River from "Motor Oil" and "Paint".

This Theory benefits US Citizens, How?


You know. it looks to me like Herr Trump and his Minions are poking too many hornets' nests at the same time. If they want to see boots in the street, well, they are doing something right. It could be a long, hot, stinging summer!


For every roll back a cost analysis should be done to determine costs saved and benefits of regulation lost money wise or safety wise over a 10 year period.


And, another analysis should record how many Federal dollars are given to the 99% and how many Federal dollars are given to the 1%. And then break those numbers down to a 'per capita' figure for each person in each of those two (99%+1%) categories.


I just feel that if every new regulation must go through a cost/benefit analysis all the regulations being resended should also go through a cost/ benefit analysis.


A quick glance back in history tells us that the first thing fascists and authoritarians do after seizing power is move quickly to make sure their actions will be considered legal. And of course, make sure that all future actions will be legal as well.

Mark these words. The Republican Party is two states away from being able to call for a constitutional convention. And at that convention, the fascists will forever legitimize themselves by rewriting the bill of rights. Everybody is comparing the coming tribulations to the book "1984." However, this is going to be far worse, as that book only portrayed an authoritarian dystopia. We surely have to endure that aspect, but we will be doing it in a backdrop of a potential ecological and enviornmental apocalypse.
And it will all be legal.


Regulations are based on statutes passed by Congress and signed by a President. Agencies must enforce these statues and do so by creating regulations based on the statute. Withdrawing a regulation would seem to be the same as ignoring a statute mandated by law. So yeah, it seems like a no brainer that this could be overturned, but then I am no lawyer or judge


Thank God these groups are suing to block Trump's ridiculous executive order! I have spent my whole life fighting for environmental protections and it has always been an uphill battle -- and for something so basic as clean water and air. With the even more draconian challenges we're facing now will sanity have a chance to prevail?


Well said, HC, well said.


Thanks, Skeezyks.


There's a difference between laws and regulations. But regulations generally implement the laws made by Congress and signed by Presidents. And there's the real problem with the EO. The job of the administration is to execute the laws. They do that through regulations.


But the EO calls for analyzing only costs; it ignores benefits. As pointed out in the article, over all, the regs in place in '14 saved the government money, and it's the government that djt heads, not a 'chamber of commerce.'


Regulations have the FORCE of Laws.


No, regulations are the means to ENforce the laws. That's why they can't be dumped arbitrarily; that would eviscerate the laws, again violating the separation of powers.


That's not what I read.

"...although they are not Laws, Regulations have the Force of Laws."


"...although they are not Laws, Regulations have the Force of Laws."


Do Trump voters understand that they may get jobs but they'll have the right to work
for slave wages and with less protection for their safety?


Where? A quote is only as good as its source.