SCOTUS - Women must give birth - Government has no say in pollution.

[Jimmy Higgins]

In the latest decision by SCOTUS, our 6-3-athon states that the EPA hasn't the authority to deal with the environment. The Chief Justice gets a bit bitchy.

Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day.’

Yeah, fuck you too.

The best part of all of this:

As a result, the Trump rules were struck, the Obama rules were not reinstated, and the Biden administration has yet to formulate its plan.

For that reason, the administration and environmentalists were stunned when the Supreme Court took the case. The Biden administration advised it to simply vacate the D.C. appeals court decision and wait to make a more intensive review of the EPA’s powers after new regulations were proposed.

Yeah... no basis to even hear the case. Yet, SCOTUS tromps in, takes a shit on the EPA and walks out after a mic drop.

So now it looks like we need a Super-Majority in Congress to pass a law to allow the EPA to deal with a gas that is warming our planet. Of course, because the Periodic Table of Elements didn't exist in 1787, this SCOTUS will likely rule the law unconstitutional.

 

[Toni]

The Supreme Court is wrong on both accounts. One’s ability to make medical decisions for one’s self and to obtain appropriate and necessary care should not be dependent upon in which state you reside or find yourself.

The EPA should be empowered to regulate industries to the extent that those industries affect the environment. Your point that the court was silent about pollutants other than CO2 is taken. This, of course, opens the doors to all sorts of pollution, which, unfortunately, will not stay within the confines of any given state.

Legislatures are not noble enough to adjust to the emerging science that must be the basis of all decisions regarding pollution and environmental protections. The EPA , on the other hand, is better positioned to make decisions and set standards. FFS, legislators are so stupid with respect to anything even science adjacent that some believe you can ‘save’ an ectopic pregnancy.

 

[Metaphor]

The Supreme Court is wrong on both accounts.

Really? What errors did they make in their legal reasoning?

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm moving this derail to the other thread.

 

[lostone]

That it this all legal is why I am an anti-natalist and and a misanthrope.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Supreme Court is wrong on both accounts.

Really? What errors did they make in their legal reasoning?

The Court of Gilead has no legal reasoning.

 

[Derec]

The Court of Gilead has no legal reasoning.

Gilead?

 

[laughing dog]

The Court of Gilead has no legal reasoning.

Gilead?

It is a reference to the fictional Republic of Gilead in Margaret Atwood's  The_Handmaid's_Tale

 

[Toni]

The Court of Gilead has no legal reasoning.

Gilead?

It is a reference to the fictional Republic of Gilead in Margaret Atwood's  The_Handmaid's_Tale

You forgot the descriptor: prescient.

 

[Derec]

It is a reference to the fictional Republic of Gilead in Margaret Atwood's  The_Handmaid's_Tale

A rare useful reply from the Hound. Thanks.
I was wondering what it had either with the Biblical place name or with the pharmaceutical company.

To be honest, I think the comparisons with THT are quite hyperbolic and even hysterical.

 

[Metaphor]

The Supreme Court is wrong on both accounts.

Really? What errors did they make in their legal reasoning?

The Court of Gilead has no legal reasoning.

So, you cannot point to any errors in their legal reasoning, but you believe referring to a book you've never read is a sufficient answer.

 

[Metaphor]

It is a reference to the fictional Republic of Gilead in Margaret Atwood's  The_Handmaid's_Tale

A rare useful reply from the Hound. Thanks.
I was wondering what it had either with the Biblical place name or with the pharmaceutical company.

To be honest, I think the comparisons with THT are quite hyperbolic and even hysterical.

Hey, ever since 'Trump's America' we've been living in The Handmaid's Tale.

Like, don't you remember in 2017 when women's bank accounts and lines of credit were frozen, black people were expelled from America, fertile women were turned into sexual and reproductive slaves in the households of powerful Commanders, reading was forbidden, rebels against the regime were deemed unWomen and sent to the gulags, and homosexuals were hanged for gender treachery?

Not ringing a bell? I confess it's been a few years since I read it. Maybe it is exactly America right now.

 

[Derec]

Some of it sounds like Iran. None of it sounds like America.
Not even post RvW.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Supreme Court is wrong on both accounts.

Really? What errors did they make in their legal reasoning?

The Court of Gilead has no legal reasoning.

So, you cannot point to any errors in their legal reasoning, but you believe referring to a book you've never read is a sufficient answer.

Bullshit. I've already cited the 14th and the 9th amendments to the constitution this ruling violates. Strange that you never responded to those posts.

 

[Metaphor]

The Supreme Court is wrong on both accounts.

Really? What errors did they make in their legal reasoning?

The Court of Gilead has no legal reasoning.

So, you cannot point to any errors in their legal reasoning, but you believe referring to a book you've never read is a sufficient answer.

Bullshit. I've already cited the 14th and the 9th amendments to the constitution this ruling violates. Strange that you never responded to those posts.

Bullshit. I asked Loren why he believes the 'Court of Gilead' has no legal reasoning, not you.

 

[Jarhyn]

To be honest, I think the comparisons with THT are quite hyperbolic and even hysterical.

They should be. The problem is that they are, nonetheless, neither.

In any wane world they would be hands in the air sky-is-falling hysterics.

But such comparisons are apt.

Your desire that they not be does not change the fact that they are.

As per Gilead, we have religious communities preaching exactly the treatment of gays and "abortionists" and trans folks "gender traitors" as per the book, and committing terrorist acts.

We have people forcing kids to grow body parts they don't want, even today, in Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, and gearing up to make homosexuality something you can sue people for.

The comparison SHOULD be silly. That was the whole point of the fucking book, to make it and if the comparison seems too APT to do something about it.

Obviously, you mistake your (probably feigned) disbelief that the comparison is apt with a real reason to so disbelieve. Sadly, there is no such reason as I can tell

 

[Gospel]

The Supreme Court is wrong on both accounts.

Really? What errors did they make in their legal reasoning?

The Court of Gilead has no legal reasoning.

So, you cannot point to any errors in their legal reasoning, but you believe referring to a book you've never read is a sufficient answer.

Bullshit. I've already cited the 14th and the 9th amendments to the constitution this ruling violates. Strange that you never responded to those posts.

Bullshit. I asked Loren why he believes the 'Court of Gilead' has no legal reasoning, not you.

Then you should have used a...

Drum roll, please!!!

Spoiler

Private message

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Supreme Court is wrong on both accounts.

Really? What errors did they make in their legal reasoning?

There was no case to be judged on!

The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the D.C. Circuit’s ruling. Roberts’ 31-page opinion began by considering whether the Republican-led states and coal companies challenging the D.C. Circuit’s decision had a right to seek review in the Supreme Court now. Because the Biden administration plans to issue a new rule on carbon emissions from power plants, rather than reinstating the CPP, the administration had argued that the case did not present a live controversy for the justices to decide. But a decision by the government to stop the conduct at the center of a case does not end the case, Roberts emphasized, “unless it is ‘absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.’” And in this case, Roberts stressed, because the Biden administration “vigorously defends” the approach that the Obama EPA took with the CPP, the Supreme Court can weigh in.

There was no actual dispute. Obama's plan was ax'd, Trump's plan was vacated, Biden didn't have a plan, but was going to work on one. The 'going to work on one' was what Roberts used as the reason that made it legitimate for SCOTUS to butt their head into a dispute that didn't exist. It is critical that you understand the fact that this maneuver is extraordinarily unusual.

This SCOTUS is coloring well outside the lines. Judging on disputes that don't even exist and expanding rulings well beyond the dispute, such as Dobbs which Mississippi argued for allowing a shorter limit on time to ban abortion... and they just tossed Roe in the shredder. This decision here lays the groundwork for tearing apart our federalist form of government. I mean, while the Dems are in charge. It amazes me the limits of power the Executive Branch people like Unitary Exectuive Alito think exists, while Democrats are in charge.

 

[laughing dog]

The Supreme Court is wrong on both accounts.

Really? What errors did they make in their legal reasoning?

There was no case to be judged on!

The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the D.C. Circuit’s ruling. Roberts’ 31-page opinion began by considering whether the Republican-led states and coal companies challenging the D.C. Circuit’s decision had a right to seek review in the Supreme Court now. Because the Biden administration plans to issue a new rule on carbon emissions from power plants, rather than reinstating the CPP, the administration had argued that the case did not present a live controversy for the justices to decide. But a decision by the government to stop the conduct at the center of a case does not end the case, Roberts emphasized, “unless it is ‘absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.’” And in this case, Roberts stressed, because the Biden administration “vigorously defends” the approach that the Obama EPA took with the CPP, the Supreme Court can weigh in.

There was no actual dispute. Obama's plan was ax'd, Trump's plan was vacated, Biden didn't have a plan, but was going to work on one. The 'going to work on one' was what Roberts used as the reason that made it legitimate for SCOTUS to butt their head into a dispute that didn't exist. It is critical that you understand the fact that this maneuver is extraordinarily unusual.

This SCOTUS is coloring well outside the lines. Judging on disputes that don't even exist and expanding rulings well beyond the dispute, such as Dobbs which Mississippi argued for allowing a shorter limit on time to ban abortion... and they just tossed Roe in the shredder. This decision here lays the groundwork for tearing apart our federalist form of government. I mean, while the Dems are in charge. It amazes me the limits of power the Executive Branch people like Unitary Exectuive Alito think exists, while Democrats are in charge.

There is even more to this. SCOTUS ruled that Congress did not give the EPA the authority for such a widespread action based on some "reasonableness" standard. In otherwords, SCOTUS substituted its judgment for Congress. Which is downright hypocritical of these SCOTUS just recently ruled that judges should leave such questions to ELECTED officials. In this particular instance, in the Clean Air Act, Congress did delegate the authority to the EPA by the phrase "use the best system available". So SCOTUS in this decision substituted its judgment for that of elected officials.

While I have some qualms about Congress given seemingly carte blanche to any department or agency, and I think SCOTUS should have some possible oversight through lawsuits, I think SCOTUS should be consistent instead of using ideology to cherry-pick.

What is ironic in this case is that the energy-industry has more than reached the original EPA goals because of market-conditions.

 

[RVonse]

The Supreme Court is wrong on both accounts.

Really? What errors did they make in their legal reasoning?

There was no case to be judged on!

The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the D.C. Circuit’s ruling. Roberts’ 31-page opinion began by considering whether the Republican-led states and coal companies challenging the D.C. Circuit’s decision had a right to seek review in the Supreme Court now. Because the Biden administration plans to issue a new rule on carbon emissions from power plants, rather than reinstating the CPP, the administration had argued that the case did not present a live controversy for the justices to decide. But a decision by the government to stop the conduct at the center of a case does not end the case, Roberts emphasized, “unless it is ‘absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.’” And in this case, Roberts stressed, because the Biden administration “vigorously defends” the approach that the Obama EPA took with the CPP, the Supreme Court can weigh in.

There was no actual dispute. Obama's plan was ax'd, Trump's plan was vacated, Biden didn't have a plan, but was going to work on one. The 'going to work on one' was what Roberts used as the reason that made it legitimate for SCOTUS to butt their head into a dispute that didn't exist. It is critical that you understand the fact that this maneuver is extraordinarily unusual.

This SCOTUS is coloring well outside the lines. Judging on disputes that don't even exist and expanding rulings well beyond the dispute, such as Dobbs which Mississippi argued for allowing a shorter limit on time to ban abortion... and they just tossed Roe in the shredder. This decision here lays the groundwork for tearing apart our federalist form of government. I mean, while the Dems are in charge. It amazes me the limits of power the Executive Branch people like Unitary Exectuive Alito think exists, while Democrats are in charge.

If abortion is such an important function, the Pelosi Democrat controlled congress should make an amendment to the constitution to allow it in all states. As libertarian type of guy, I actually would kind of prefer the government stay completely out of this. IMO the federal government should neither pay for abortions nor pass any laws against them.

That being said, the correct way should be through congress and NOT the courts. Roe vs Wade should never have been needed to be relevant in the first place nor its reversal.