LeviF Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 11 hours ago, daz28 said: Almost all people are against killing babies, but you want to equate that to aborting a fetus. The "fetus" in question: 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotSHO Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 7 minutes ago, LeviF said: The "fetus" in question: The distinction daz is trying to make is asinine, and makes me think might have just appeared on the earth instead of the normal gestation & birthing process. Daz took it one step further from Jesus - not just a immaculate conception/virgin birth situation, but maybe the first immaculate appearance of a human. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roundybout Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 looks like unregulated pollution is back on the menu, boys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 27 Author Share Posted June 27 4 minutes ago, Roundybout said: looks like unregulated pollution is back on the menu, boys It looks like spinning overstated bullsh*t is back also. Here's the link: Ohio v. EPA, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a349_0813.pdf This was a case about whether the Supreme Court should temporarily block a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce air pollution from power plants and other industrial facilities while litigation continues. The case arises from the EPA’s interpretation of a law known as the “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act, which requires “upwind” states to reduce emissions that affect the air quality in “downwind” states. The court grants the states' application to put the rule on hold while the case proceeds in the lower courts. OH NO, unlimited pollution !!!!! Oh wait ! . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roundybout Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 4 minutes ago, B-Man said: It looks like spinning overstated bullsh*t is back also. Here's the link: Ohio v. EPA, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a349_0813.pdf This was a case about whether the Supreme Court should temporarily block a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce air pollution from power plants and other industrial facilities while litigation continues. The case arises from the EPA’s interpretation of a law known as the “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act, which requires “upwind” states to reduce emissions that affect the air quality in “downwind” states. The court grants the states' application to put the rule on hold while the case proceeds in the lower courts. OH NO, unlimited pollution !!!!! Oh wait ! . BS, SCOTUS could have put an end to that nonsense right now and they didn’t. This is bad! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 27 Author Share Posted June 27 Just now, Roundybout said: BS, SCOTUS could have put an end to that nonsense right now and they didn’t. Unfortunately for your "nonsense" screed, they went with the rule of law. Meanwhile: And here is the Purdue Pharma opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-124_8nk0.pdf The court rules in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a multi-billion-dollar bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma, the maker of the highly addictive opioid painkiller OxyContin, that would release members of the Sackler family, which owned the company but did not declare bankruptcy, from any future liability for claims against them. https://www.scotusblog.com/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 We would like to think that the Supreme Court is made up of 9 wise men and women. A reminder about the conservative view of "wisdom" from the great GK Chesterton, often paraphrased as something like this: "Don't ever take down a fence unless you know the reason why it was put up in the first place." As the current Supreme Court works on its project to reorder long-existing balances in the roles of states vs. the federal government, and between Congress and the Executive, perhaps this is worth keeping in mind? Perhaps being a conservative means being concerned about the impacts of such radical restructuring? The full quote: “In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 27 Author Share Posted June 27 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-859_1924.pdf In SEC v. Jarkesy, the court rules that when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial. The court framed the issue as whether the Seventh Amendment allows the SEC to compel Jarkesy to defend himself before the agency rather than before a jury in federal court. The court holds that when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial. The vote is 6-3. Sotomayor dissents, joined by Kagan and Jackson. https://www.scotusblog.com/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotSHO Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: We would like to think that the Supreme Court is made up of 9 wise men and women. A reminder about the conservative view of "wisdom" from the great GK Chesterton, often paraphrased as something like this: "Don't ever take down a fence unless you know the reason why it was put up in the first place." As the current Supreme Court works on its project to reorder long-existing balances in the roles of states vs. the federal government, and between Congress and the Executive, perhaps this is worth keeping in mind? Perhaps being a conservative means being concerned about the impacts of such radical restructuring? The full quote: “In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." I see this everyday in my industry, and most of the time that tact is the correct way to go about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roundybout Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 3 minutes ago, B-Man said: Unfortunately for your "nonsense" screed, they went with the rule of law. Meanwhile: And here is the Purdue Pharma opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-124_8nk0.pdf The court rules in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a multi-billion-dollar bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma, the maker of the highly addictive opioid painkiller OxyContin, that would release members of the Sackler family, which owned the company but did not declare bankruptcy, from any future liability for claims against them. https://www.scotusblog.com/ This is a good decision! But Gorsuch, Thomas, Barrett, Alito and Jackson is a weird bunch for the opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: We would like to think that the Supreme Court is made up of 9 wise men and women. A reminder about the conservative view of "wisdom" from the great GK Chesterton, often paraphrased as something like this: "Don't ever take down a fence unless you know the reason why it was put up in the first place." As the current Supreme Court works on its project to reorder long-existing balances in the roles of states vs. the federal government, and between Congress and the Executive, perhaps this is worth keeping in mind? Perhaps being a conservative means being concerned about the impacts of such radical restructuring? The full quote: “In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." Let us, too, remember the words of the great Les Emmerson (RIP), who wrote: And the sign said "Anybody caught trespassin'...will be shot on sight". So I jumped on the fence and I yelled at the house "Hey! What gives you the right to put up a fence to keep me out but to keep Mother Nature in? If God was here, he'd tell you to your face 'Man, you're some kind of sinner'"... Are you, Frank? Are you "some kind of sinner"? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 11 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Let us, too, remember the words of the great Les Emmerson (RIP), who wrote: And the sign said "Anybody caught trespassin'...will be shot on sight". So I jumped on the fence and I yelled at the house "Hey! What gives you the right to put up a fence to keep me out but to keep Mother Nature in? If God was here, he'd tell you to your face 'Man, you're some kind of sinner'"... Are you, Frank? Are you "some kind of sinner"? Wait, give me a minute to tuck up my hair under my hat first ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 10 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Wait, give me a minute to tuck up my hair under my hat first ... stoner. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 She's not a biologist so can't define woman. Definitely a wokeologist. Pregnant people. People who have the potential to become a pregant person and people who have XX chromosomes (women) have a 100% venn diagram overlap. Therefore since she's unqualified to define woman, she's also unqualified to define pregnant people. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 On 6/26/2024 at 11:08 AM, Big Blitz said: Silicon Valley (minus Twitter version 2.0) are hostile foreign nations that don’t serve American interests - they hate America. And take orders from the CIA that they willingly follow. That’s the issue. Finding a way to destroy their influence is the objective. We can vote these POS in government out and replace them with people ready to dismantle the DMIC. I don’t have to use Facebook or Google - and will absolutely continue to inform people of how evil they are. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roundybout Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 Hahah oh we’re so *****, incredibly ***** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 28 Author Share Posted June 28 3 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Hahah oh we’re so *****, incredibly ***** What ACTUALLY happened. SCOTUS Delivers a Kill Shot to Big Government PAULA BOLYARD Today, the Supreme Court ruled to overrule the so-called Chevron deference in a 6-3 decision. The ruling is a HUGE victory for those who hate the power the massive bureaucratic state has amassed in recent decades. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded: "Chevron is overruled." In the most basic terms, the Chevron deference (also called the Chevron doctrine) allows the courts, through a two-step process, to defer to "reasonable" administrative agency interpretations if a federal statute is unclear or ambiguous. It was/is essentially a get-out-of-jail-free card for presidents and agency hacks who liked to claim that a law says whatever they want it to say. It gave federal agencies broad authority to regulate everything from health care to immigration to women's sports to Covid jabs. The high court had consolidated two cases—Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce—and heard oral arguments in January of this year. Most of us learned in school (I hope!) that the judicial branch interprets the law. It's explained in both Marbury v. Madison and Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 78. The Chevron doctrine takes some of that power to interpret from the courts and hands it to unelected bureaucrats. The word "deference" in Chevron means that the court defers rulemaking to "experts" in the administrative state. https://pjmedia.com/paula-bolyard/2024/06/28/breaking-supreme-court-rules-on-chevron-doctrine-n4930001 I guess those who want unlimited, uncontrolled big government are ****** . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roundybout Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 Just now, B-Man said: What ACTUALLY happened. SCOTUS Delivers a Kill Shot to Big Government PAULA BOLYARD Today, the Supreme Court ruled to overrule the so-called Chevron deference in a 6-3 decision. The ruling is a HUGE victory for those who hate the power the massive bureaucratic state has amassed in recent decades. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded: "Chevron is overruled." In the most basic terms, the Chevron deference (also called the Chevron doctrine) allows the courts, through a two-step process, to defer to "reasonable" administrative agency interpretations if a federal statute is unclear or ambiguous. It was/is essentially a get-out-of-jail-free card for presidents and agency hacks who liked to claim that a law says whatever they want it to say. It gave federal agencies broad authority to regulate everything from health care to immigration to women's sports to Covid jabs. The high court had consolidated two cases—Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce—and heard oral arguments in January of this year. Most of us learned in school (I hope!) that the judicial branch interprets the law. It's explained in both Marbury v. Madison and Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 78. The Chevron doctrine takes some of that power to interpret from the courts and hands it to unelected bureaucrats. The word "deference" in Chevron means that the court defers rulemaking to "experts" in the administrative state. https://pjmedia.com/paula-bolyard/2024/06/28/breaking-supreme-court-rules-on-chevron-doctrine-n4930001 I guess those who want unlimited, uncontrolled big government are ****** . I’ll put this nicely - f you straight to hell. This is the death knell for any enforcement of the clean air act and other federal statutes, all because conservatives are pathetic pissbabies afraid of their own shadows. “big government.” ***** all the way off. I’m furious. this is a disastrous ruling erasing 40 years of legal precedent. 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 28 Author Share Posted June 28 Grants Pass v. Johnson. Gorsuch. 6-3... the usual lineup. "The court holds that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute 'cruel and unusual punishment' barred by the Eighth Amendment." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf Common sense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCBills Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 1 minute ago, Roundybout said: I’ll put this nicely - f you straight to hell. This is the death knell for any enforcement of the clean air act and other federal statutes, all because conservatives are pathetic pissbabies afraid of their own shadows. “big government.” ***** all the way off. I’m furious. this is a disastrous ruling erasing 40 years of legal precedent. The state of the left in 2024 Crying whenever government power over our lives is limited. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts