2022 SCOTUS rulings

[HI54UNI]

I love how the Senate Majority Leader and other Dems are complaining because the Supreme Court said the Legislative Branch is supposed to pass laws.

[HI54UNI]

So the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't have the authority to protect the environment???

I guess we can just shut down that whole agency and pocket the money. I'm looking forward to my tax refund.

They have the authority to act under Congressional guidance (regulations that Congress passes) not a blank check to do whatever they want.

Congress did not give them unilateral authority, which is how the EPA has been acting since the 90's.

And I am all for working on keeping the environment clean and healthy. Just it needs to be evidence based.

This.

[SDHornet]

Cry more, shitlib.

Is that a "none"? About what I figured.

Nobody is crying today except traitor cunts, like yourself.

I've got my own kids thank you very much.

And yes there should (and probably will) be charities and agencies that step up and address the adoption/fostering issue...or maybe big gubmint will solve this problem.

[SDHornet]

And the other major political party believes that a series of lies written in 1848 just “hasn’t been done right” and are willing to throw away the greatest nation on earth to give Marx another shot. They’re the American Stalin.

[SDHornet]

Interesting thread...

[SDHornet]

[JohnStOnge]

I am being forced to conclude, at this point, that this court is political. Not that liberal courts haven't been political in the past. But this court is political. The thing with saying it is OK for the Louisiana legislature to have just one Black majority district is an example. Louisiana is one third Black. That's math. To me, what the Louisiana legislature did in creating a situation in which only 1 of 6 Congressional districts is majority
Black is clearly a violation of the Voting Rights Act. It's really blatant and obvious. But this Supreme Court is going to allow that situation to prevail during the next Congressional election.

Another one is the EPA thing. I have never dealt with environmental regulation but I have dealt with public health regulation a lot. Congress gives VERY broad authority to regulatory agencies to do things like what EPA was doing. We live in a very complex world with 330,000 million people in our country and 7.8 billion people int he world. Saying Congress has to explicitly say EPA can do something specific like that instead of just giving it broad authority to do what it needs to do to control emissions is ridiculous. This is not good. And, to me, it is clearly based on political philosophy.

[JohnStOnge]

Interesting thread...

I think it is simpler than that. We have a flawed system that allows the minority to rule. A President who lost the overall vote among the People got to nominate Supreme Court Justices. His Party controlled the Senate at the time of each appointment because we have a system in which low population States have just as many Senators ad high population States do. So when he nominated the first two the Republicans had the majority in the Senate even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by a margin of about 8 percentage points. And when he nominated the third one the Republicans had the majority even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by about 10 percentage points.

It happened because we have a system that allows for minority rule.

[JohnStOnge]

Look, we've got a serious problem right now. We have a major political Party that is beholding to a core base of people who are completely separated from reality. They depend on overwhelming support among a group that is around 30% of the population and believes that a series of myths written between something like 4,000 and 1,800 years ago is the inerrant truth. it's the American Taliban.

And the other major political party believes that a series of lies written in 1848 just “hasn’t been done right” and are willing to throw away the greatest nation on earth to give Marx another shot. They’re the American Stalin.

No it doesn't. The Democrats aren't Marxists and they don't subscribe to the Communist Manifesto. That's just one more over the top lie Republicans tell all the time.

[houndawg]

Is that a "none"? About what I figured.

Nobody is crying today except traitor cunts, like yourself.

I've got my own kids thank you very much.

And yes there should (and probably will) be charities and agencies that step up and address the adoption/fostering issue...or maybe big gubmint will solve this problem.

400,000 is a lot of unwanted kids

[UNI88]

And the other major political party believes that a series of lies written in 1848 just “hasn’t been done right” and are willing to throw away the greatest nation on earth to give Marx another shot. They’re the American Stalin.

No it doesn't. The Republicans aren't Fascists and they don't subscribe to Mein Kampf . That's just one more over the top lie Democrats tell all the time.

Perspective and putting aside your bias is important.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

No it doesn't. The Republicans aren't Fascists and they don't subscribe to Mein Kampf . That's just one more over the top lie Democrats tell all the time.

Perspective and putting aside your bias is important.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

While we might see a some of it, I really don't think we see nearly as much of that kind of over the top stuff from the Democrats as we see from the Republicans. But since you brought it up: I do think there is more risk of Republicans being in power leading us to fascism than there is of Democrats leading us to communism.

The "they're both bad" thing is something I know people like to do. But at this time in history we are in an asymmetrical situation. The Republicans are a lot worse. A lot.

[HI54UNI]

Interesting thread...

I think it is simpler than that. We have a flawed system that allows the minority to rule. A President who lost the overall vote among the People got to nominate Supreme Court Justices. His Party controlled the Senate at the time of each appointment because we have a system in which low population States have just as many Senators ad high population States do. So when he nominated the first two the Republicans had the majority in the Senate even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by a margin of about 8 percentage points. And when he nominated the third one the Republicans had the majority even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by about 10 percentage points.

It happened because we have a system that allows for minority rule.

Cry more.

[BDKJMU]

The thing with saying it is OK for the Louisiana legislature to have just one Black majority district is an example. Louisiana is one third Black. That's math. To me, what the Louisiana legislature did in creating a situation in which only 1 of 6 Congressional districts is majority
Black is clearly a violation of the Voting Rights Act. It's really blatant and obvious. But this Supreme Court is going to allow that situation to prevail during the next Congressional election.

No its not. If 2/3 of the population of a state was non black, and 1/3 was black, and they were spread throughout the state, and the districts were drawn randomly without regard to race, you could easily have only one district that was majority black, or even zero.

And what you are proposing is packing more blacks into fewer districts, which actually gets more blacks elected to Congress, but fewer democrats, and more republicans.

[Baldy]

Interesting thread...

I think it is simpler than that. We have a flawed system that allows the minority to rule. A President who lost the overall vote among the People got to nominate Supreme Court Justices. His Party controlled the Senate at the time of each appointment because we have a system in which low population States have just as many Senators ad high population States do. So when he nominated the first two the Republicans had the majority in the Senate even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by a margin of about 8 percentage points. And when he nominated the third one the Republicans had the majority even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by about 10 percentage points.

It happened because we have a system that allows for minority rule.

That's how the system was designed. You should probably sign up for an elementary level civics class. It would do you a world of good.
I just don't know why so many people are so dumb about this. The United States is a union of individual states. Congress was intentionally designed for states to be represented equally in the Senate and proportionally in the House of Representatives.

BTW, its long pass time to repeal the 17th amendment.

[AZGrizFan]

I think it is simpler than that. We have a flawed system that allows the minority to rule. A President who lost the overall vote among the People got to nominate Supreme Court Justices. His Party controlled the Senate at the time of each appointment because we have a system in which low population States have just as many Senators ad high population States do. So when he nominated the first two the Republicans had the majority in the Senate even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by a margin of about 8 percentage points. And when he nominated the third one the Republicans had the majority even though more people had voted for Democrats during the elections involved by about 10 percentage points.

It happened because we have a system that allows for minority rule.

That's how the system was designed. You should probably sign up for an elementary level civics class. It would do you a world of good.
I just don't know why so many people are so dumb about this. The United States is a union of individual states. Congress was intentionally designed for states to be represented equally in the Senate and proportionally in the House of Representatives.

BTW, its long pass time to repeal the 17th amendment.

He needs much more than an elementary level civics class. His ignorance goes much deeper.

[kalm]

Hey, Joe. Any thoughts on this one?

WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a Republican-backed appeal that could give state legislatures far more power over federal elections by limiting the ability of state courts to review their actions, taking up a North Carolina case that could have broad implications for the 2024 elections and beyond.

The justices took up the appeal by Republican state lawmakers of a February decision by North Carolina's top court to throw out a map delineating the state's 14 U.S. House of Representatives districts approved last year by the Republican-controlled state legislature.……………………

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Republican request to put on hold the lower court rulings that adopted the court-drawn map, a decision seen as boosting Democratic hopes of retaining their slim House majority in the November midterm elections. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from that decision.

The Republican lawmakers said the state court impermissibly imposed its own policy determination for how much partisanship can go into crafting congressional lines. They acknowledged that the case would have an impact beyond redistricting, extending to "the whole waterfront of voting issues, from absentee voting deadlines to witness requirements, voter ID to curbside voting."


The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case in its next term, which begins in October, with a decision due by June 2023. The ruling is not expected to come before this November's elections but could apply to 2024 elections including the presidential race.

[BDKJMU]

Another one is the EPA thing. I have never dealt with environmental regulation but I have dealt with public health regulation a lot. Congress gives VERY broad authority to regulatory agencies to do things like what EPA was doing. We live in a very complex world with 330,000 million people in our country and 7.8 billion people int he world. Saying Congress has to explicitly say EPA can do something specific like that instead of just giving it broad authority to do what it needs to do to control emissions is ridiculous. This is not good. And, to me, it is clearly based on political philosophy.

And that is the problem right there. You want unelected, unaccountable DC bureaucrats being given carte blanche to make rules and policies, in some cases based on unproven theories like here, that can harm the economy, and greatly affect, and in some cases, ruin peoples lives.

And CO2 isn’t a pollutant.

[bobbythekidd]

And CO2 isn’t a pollutant.

Weird. The Supreme Court said it was.

In one of the most important decisions in environmental law, the US Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant and that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the right to regulate CO2 emissions from new cars.

https://dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

[BDKJMU]

And CO2 isn’t a pollutant.

Weird. The Supreme Court said it was.

In one of the most important decisions in environmental law, the US Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant and that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the right to regulate CO2 emissions from new cars.

https://dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

In a prior case 15 years ago. And SCOTUS has also been wrong before and overtunred before, as we have recently seemingl.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
Pollutant, according to Mirriam-Webster’s, denotes “something that pollutes,” and to pollute is “to make physically impure or unclean” or “to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste.” The Google online dictionary defines pollutant as “a substance that pollutes something, especially water or the atmosphere,” and pollute as to “contaminate (water, air, or a place) with harmful or poisonous substances.”

Carbon dioxide isn’t harmful or poisonous except at concentrations over a hundred times higher than its concentration in Earth’s atmosphere—levels that we’ll never approach by burning fossil fuels.

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/e-ca ... -pollutant

CO2 is essential to photosynthesis and hence to all life.
We don’t breath out pollutants.

[bobbythekidd]

Weird. The Supreme Court said it was.


https://dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

In a prior case 15 years ago. And SCOTUS has also been wrong before and overtunred before, as we have recently seemingl.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
Pollutant, according to Mirriam-Webster’s, denotes “something that pollutes,” and to pollute is “to make physically impure or unclean” or “to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste.” The Google online dictionary defines pollutant as “a substance that pollutes something, especially water or the atmosphere,” and pollute as to “contaminate (water, air, or a place) with harmful or poisonous substances.”

Carbon dioxide isn’t harmful or poisonous except at concentrations over a hundred times higher than its concentration in Earth’s atmosphere—levels that we’ll never approach by burning fossil fuels.

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/e-ca ... -pollutant

CO2 is essential to photosynthesis and hence to all life.
We don’t breath out pollutants.

Were you hoping to use an unbiased source or the one you linked that describes their mission as:

Cornwall Alliance is on a mission. It’s a big mission—way too big for any one person. Here it is:

to save the lost by means of the gospel of Jesus Christ (John 3:16; Acts 4:12);
to save churches from false teaching about God, creation, humanity, sin, and salvation by teaching people to “test all things, hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21);
to save the poor from counterproductive environment and energy policies (Galatians 2:10);
to save kids (and others!) from false propaganda in news, entertainment, politics, and education (2 Timothy 4:1–5);
to save free people from government overreach (Psalm 94:20–21), even while working to ensure just governments that save people from oppression (Psalm 72);
to “save the planet from the people who are saving the planet” (Romans 1:20–25).

[SeattleGriz]

And CO2 isn’t a pollutant.

Weird. The Supreme Court said it was.

In one of the most important decisions in environmental law, the US Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant and that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the right to regulate CO2 emissions from new cars.

https://dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

I know this is about SCOTUS rulings, but I sure hope that pollutant, CO2, doesn't kill all the plants. Stupid photosynthesis.

[UNI88]

Weird. The Supreme Court said it was. https://dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

I know this is about SCOTUS rulings, but I sure hope that pollutant, CO2, doesn't kill all the plants. Stupid photosynthesis.

Is too much CO2 a good or bad thing?

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

I know this is about SCOTUS rulings, but I sure hope that pollutant, CO2, doesn't kill all the plants. Stupid photosynthesis.

Is too much CO2 a good or bad thing?

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

I would have to say too much is a bad thing, but that's the rub, as the datasets we use for public consumption are junk.

[UNI88]

Is too much CO2 a good or bad thing?

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

I would have to say too much is a bad thing, but that's the rub, as the datasets we use for public consumption are junk.

So if too much CO2 is produced, more than plants can use, the excess CO2 could be considered a pollutant? We shouldn't be talking in absolutes.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk