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

[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.

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.

Congress cannot unilaterally amend the Constitution.

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.

I agree Roe v Wade should not have been needed. If you think the right to privacy or the right to make one’s own medical decision is tacitly in the Constitution, then there is no need for legislation except to make the right explicit to theocrats, misogynists and the ignorant dupes.

 

[lostone]

The widespread fear of women regarding period tracking apps seems to demonstrate that the privacy issue was a valid was a valid issue upon which to base the Roe issue.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

It seems you are basing this on the minority opinion from Kagan. I don't understand your language claiming there was 'no case'. It was an appeal case.

 

[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.

Then you should have used a...

Drum roll, please!!!

Spoiler

Private message

Why? It is clear I am asking Loren to back up his assertion.

 

[Gospel]

Forum is.public if you want a personal conversation private messages are appropriate.

Edit: it's equivalent to taking someone to the side and talking to them away from other people.

Edit 2: your.wlecome to ignore posts but it makes no sense to get snippy when someone replies to one that's public.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

There was no case to be judged on!
...
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.

There was no case to be judged on, no actual dispute, in Roe v Wade itself. Jane Roe had already given birth by the time the case reached the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS butting its head into an issue that has become moot is unusual because the SCOTUS has quite enough on its plate just dealing with live cases; it's not because doing so is an error in legal reasoning.

 

[Metaphor]

Forum is.public if you want a personal conversation private messages are appropriate.

Edit: it's equivalent to taking someone to the side and talking to them away from other people.

Edit 2: your.wlecome to ignore posts but it makes no sense to get snippy when someone replies to one that's public.

I am still interested in the question being answered by the person I asked it of.

 

[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.

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.

That was an impressive post where going circles and not getting anywhere is concerned.

 

[Bomb#20]

Your thread title is incorrect. The SCOTUS didn't rule government has no say in pollution. They didn't even say the EPA has no say in pollution, or that Congress has no say in this particular pollution, only that the EPA exceeded the authority delegated to it by Congress. Congress and Biden could fix this in a week by passing a one-sentence law.

In the latest decision by SCOTUS, our 6-3-athon states that the EPA hasn't the authority to deal with the environment.

Hyperbole much? There are some things it can do to deal with the environment and some things it can't.

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.

Hardly -- we need a simple majority with the backbone to abolish the filibuster. It's not like the Repubs will have the courtesy to wait for a supermajority when the situation is reversed some day.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

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

But there were two rulings Metaphor asked Toni to explain her claims about. How do you figure the EPA ruling violates the 14th and 9th amendments?

 

[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.

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

But there were two rulings Metaphor asked Toni to explain her claims about. How do you figure the EPA ruling violates the 14th and 9th amendments?

I was only addressing metaphor's response to the court of Gilead comment.

 

[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.

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.

Others have already pointed out problems with their argument.

I'm just using Gilead as an indication of the sort of world they want. Remember, Thomas is after birth control also.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Because it's about looking for "reasons" to do what they have already decided to do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Roe v Wade was because the legislature wasn't doing it's job.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Forum is.public if you want a personal conversation private messages are appropriate.

Edit: it's equivalent to taking someone to the side and talking to them away from other people.

Edit 2: your.wlecome to ignore posts but it makes no sense to get snippy when someone replies to one that's public.

I didn't reply because I was out in the mountains yesterday rather than on my computer.

 

[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.

Others have already pointed out problems with their argument.

If you are going to make a point, you should be willing to defend that point.

I'm just using Gilead as an indication of the sort of world they want. Remember, Thomas is after birth control also.

The comparison of 2022 America to the fictive Gilead in The Handmaid's Tale is superlatively ludicrous. To call the Supreme Court 'the court of Gilead" indicates to me you don't understand either the Supreme Court or Gilead.

 

[Metaphor]

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

Because it's about looking for "reasons" to do what they have already decided to do.

Then it's been the Court of Gilead since at least 1973, and probably since its creation.

 

[Jarhyn]

Forum is.public if you want a personal conversation private messages are appropriate.

Edit: it's equivalent to taking someone to the side and talking to them away from other people.

Edit 2: your.wlecome to ignore posts but it makes no sense to get snippy when someone replies to one that's public.

I didn't reply because I was out in the mountains yesterday rather than on my computer.

You'll have to link any good pictures you got!

 

[Toni]

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

Because it's about looking for "reasons" to do what they have already decided to do.

Then it's been the Court of Gilead since at least 1973, and probably since its creation.

Nope.

 

[Metaphor]

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

Because it's about looking for "reasons" to do what they have already decided to do.

Then it's been the Court of Gilead since at least 1973, and probably since its creation.

Nope.

Ah yes. Judges didn't have political leanings in 1973. They were in a political void, and were robots.*

* I am not claiming they were literal robots. The statement is rhetorical.