May I suggest here a way, perhaps, to get at this question of conflict? Part of my problem is to say that ``in the event of conflict''--in my judgment there is no possibility of conflict. We have written conflict out. So, therefore, you do not want to admit the possibility of that which you have written out, which injects its own ambiguity. So you ought to take that phrase out and simply say that nothing herein shall derogate or diminish or repeal or modify the health-based standards or the technology-based standards of environmental statutes--or words to that effect.
David Cay Johnston: “May I suggest here a way, perhaps, to get at this question of conflict? Part of my problem is to say that ``in the event…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing potential conflicts in environmental legislation.
Share
More from David Cay Johnston
Then how in the world can the Senator say they are transferring the duty of disposing of nuclear waste from the Federal Government or the taxpayers and giving that to the utilities?
This is absolutely devastating for Donald Trump, and unless a Court of Appeals overturns this, which I would think highly unlikely, we're going to see his properties seized, dissolved, and the creditors paid off, and he will be permanently…
The point is this, though: They have tested it with weapons 30 times bigger than antitank weapons with direct hits. That caused a breach. Only a third of an ounce comes out. There are many, many much more lucrative targets, by orders of…
The decision of the court of appeals makes clear that they have a vested right to the title passing as of the time that the nuclear repository is built and not until that time, but they have the duty to dispose of the waste January 31…





