It's hard to say what's worst about Scott Pruitt, Donald Trump's choice to head the EPA. Among the choices are:
The recent resignation-in-disgrace of Trump Administration National Security Advisor (NSA), Michael Flynn, and the resulting damage to the country could have been avoided. If the President and his advisers had looked at Flynn more carefully before he was appointed to head the NSA (and assuming that they even cared about what they would have found), they would have realized that the conflicts created by Flynn's unusual coziness with the Russians would explode in their faces, and badly damage our national security interests.
It is well known that President Trump's pick to run the EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has sued the EPA 14 times.
This week, the U.S. Senate votes on whether to approve President Trump's choice, Scott Pruitt, to head the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). Why should every Senator in the building vote "No"?
I've written recently about President Trump's determination to get the EPA out of the business of protecting the environment and the lives and health of the American people. (EPA Blog) (Gorsuch blog). Huge corporate polluters-including petroleum and mining companies-are tired of having to comply with the federal clean air and water laws, and, in Trump, have found their man to take them off the hook.
The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to gut the Stream Protection Rule, which prevents coal companies from duping mining waste into local streams. The environmental regulations on coal mining also required companies to test the quality of water that their mining operations could affect and to restore streams that were damaged by coal mining operations.
If you care about the environment's impact on our life and health, should you care about whether Judge Neil Gorsuch, who President Trump has just nominated, is approved for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court?