• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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.
CJ Roberts said:
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:
article said:
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

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,589
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov

lostone

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
124
Basic Beliefs
skeptic
That it this all legal is why I am an anti-natalist and and a misanthrope.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,589
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
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

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
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.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,355
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
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

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov

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

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,706
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist

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

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,359
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic

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!!!

Private message
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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!
article said:
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.
 
Last edited:

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,350
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
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!
article said:
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

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,330
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
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!
article said:
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.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,350
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
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!
article said:
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.
Rvonse said:
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

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
124
Basic Beliefs
skeptic
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

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
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!

article said:
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

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov

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!!!

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

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,359
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
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

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
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

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
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

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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!
article said:
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

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
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

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,433
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
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

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,355
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,704
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,704
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,704
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
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

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
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

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,706
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
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

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,589
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
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.
 

scombrid

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2001
Messages
849
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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!
article said:
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.
The federal government should neither pay for abortions nor pass any laws against them. Okay, but neither should the states either then. So yeah, Roe V Wade should never have been needed because states shouldn't have been restricting marriage between races, shouldn't have been restricting who can have sex and how, etc... but states were restricting such individual liberties and the Supreme Court awhile back found in fact that it was not Constitutional for Virginia to make it illegal for Clarence and Ginny to be married.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,589
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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.
The Supreme Court is NOT supposed to be political. Yes, justices are nominated and confirmed (or not) by POTUS/Senate and are so nominated and confirmed not just based upon their qualifications and experience but upon how they might interpret the Constitution.

This is the makeup of the US Supreme Court in 1973:

The vote on Roe vs. Wade was 7-2.
The following judges, along with the POTUS who nominated them, who voted in favor of Roe vs Wade:
  • Harry Blackmun (Nixon, R)
  • Warren Burger (Nixon, R)
  • William Douglas (FDR, D)
  • William Brennan (Eisenhower, R)
  • Potter Stewart (Eisenhower, R)
  • Thurgood Marshall (LBJ, D)
  • Lewis Powell (Nixon, R)
The only 2 dissenting on Roe vs. Wade
  • Byron White (Kennedy, D)
  • William Rehnquist (Nixon, R; chief justice under Reagan, R)
In the past when the Supreme Court has overturned precedence, it has been to increase freedoms and rights, not to suppress them.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,589
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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!
article said:
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.
The federal government should neither pay for abortions nor pass any laws against them. Okay, but neither should the states either then. So yeah, Roe V Wade should never have been needed because states shouldn't have been restricting marriage between races, shouldn't have been restricting who can have sex and how, etc... but states were restricting such individual liberties and the Supreme Court awhile back found in fact that it was not Constitutional for Virginia to make it illegal for Clarence and Ginny to be married.
Federal govt. does not pay for abortions. In many states, neither does the state.

Maybe this is Clarence's strategy: to invalidate his marriage to Ginny.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,589
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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!
article said:
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.
The federal government should neither pay for abortions nor pass any laws against them. Okay, but neither should the states either then. So yeah, Roe V Wade should never have been needed because states shouldn't have been restricting marriage between races, shouldn't have been restricting who can have sex and how, etc... but states were restricting such individual liberties and the Supreme Court awhile back found in fact that it was not Constitutional for Virginia to make it illegal for Clarence and Ginny to be married.
Surely basic human rights such as right to choose one's medical treatment and who to marry should be universal, and not decided on a state to state basis. The US Constitution originally was founded on the very unjust principal that some people could own other people and that this was a matter to be decided by individual states. We fought an entire war about it. The slavery states lost. Thank god. Women were given the right to vote, which should NOT depend upon which state one resides. Native Americans, who, btw, also lost tremendously in the most recent US Supreme Court rulings, were given the right to vote, which should NOT be restricted or granted state by state. None of these should ever have been a question, but they were.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,675
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Thread title: "SCOTUS -- women must give birth ....etc..."

It turns out that girls, not merely adult females, also must give birth.

There is a news story going around about a 10 year old girl in Ohio who was raped and is now 6 weeks pregnant. She had to go to another state to get an abortion, not sure if that happened, but it's unnecessary to discuss whether it did or not.

There is an extreme difficulty for underage girls to get abortions as underage people have less power over themselves and as churches and other conservative institutions are fighting a war on abortion, situations like this are casualties.

Conservatives won't stop there either.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,589
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Thread title: "SCOTUS -- women must give birth ....etc..."

It turns out that girls, not merely adult females, also must give birth.

There is a news story going around about a 10 year old girl in Ohio who was raped and is now 6 weeks pregnant. She had to go to another state to get an abortion, not sure if that happened, but it's unnecessary to discuss whether it did or not.

There is an extreme difficulty for underage girls to get abortions as underage people have less power over themselves and as churches and other conservative institutions are fighting a war on abortion, situations like this are casualties.

Conservatives won't stop there either.
It's not a 'situation' that is a casualty. It's the lives of young girl children who are rape victims, usually at the hands of a close family member who, btw, gets to make their medical decisions.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,350
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
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.*
Do you have an actual point or is that another example of pointless, vapid sarcasm?
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,589
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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.*
Do you have an actual point or is that another example of pointless, vapid sarcasm?
My take is that Metaphor isn't terribly well informed about US history/politics and relies on some pretty biased sites for his information. So, anything that contradicts his take he sees as political and leftist.

I don't mean to criticize Metaphor for not having a deep understanding of US politics and history. A lot of Americans do not have one either. And I confess that a) history is not my favorite subject and b) I know next to nothing about Australia's history or politics. I'd sound extremely ignorant and ill informed if I attempted to comment about Australia.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
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.*
Do you have an actual point or is that another example of pointless, vapid sarcasm?
The point is that the people decrying this decision appear to believe that this court used no legal reasoning and was completely influenced by their personal politics, but the 1973 court used exceptional legal reasoning and none of them were influenced bu their personal politics.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,589
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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.*
Do you have an actual point or is that another example of pointless, vapid sarcasm?
The point is that the people decrying this decision appear to believe that this court used no legal reasoning and was completely influenced by their personal politics, but the 1973 court used exceptional legal reasoning and none of them were influenced bu their personal politics.
I'm so sorry you are having a difficult time understanding when multiple people explained to you that Roe v Wade, like many other landmark decisions, was the culmination of multiple earlier decisions and not simply a flip the switch kind of thing.

I'm sorry that you refuse to consider that the justices who ruled in favor of Roe were appointed primarily by Republicans, and conservative Republicans at that. As were the justices who have upheld Roe in the years until this new decision.

You may form your opinions about legal matters based upon your little fee fees but some of actually have spent time dealing with the decisions, legal precedent, ramifications, etc. of Roe and many other decisions.
 
Top Bottom