Protecting the Constitution

[muwarrior69]

A welcome victory for polluters.

@SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court sharply curtails the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change. In a 6-3 ruling, the court sides with conservative states and fossil-fuel companies in adopting a narrow reading of the Clean Air Act.

...and a defeat to unelected bureaucrats.

[Dickthedribbler]

This has been the best pride month ever for the Constitution and the Country. Gonna be a great Independence Day!

Agree completely. Good 2 weeks for Constitutional jurisprudence.

[Dickthedribbler]

You lack a basic understanding of economics.  No one here takes your opinions seriously.

I take his opinions seriously.

[Merit Matters]

...and a defeat to unelected bureaucrats.

This is exactly the point. Things need to be done by Congress.

[Uncle Rico]

Hopefully, someone will Pelican Brief a few of these justices

[Hards Alumni]

I take his opinions seriously.

This says a lot about your state of mind.  You're certainly the first to have his back on any of his deranged ramblings around here.

[MUBurrow]

This is exactly the point. Things need to be done by Congress.

I don't think people really understand what the ramifications of this is/will be. If you think public institutions don't work now, just wait until we eliminate all implied authority of the administrative state. 

Gotta love when folks blame the government for not being able to function like a private business, then by judicial decree prohibit the government from acting in a way that even vaguely reflects a private business.

[Hards Alumni]

Wait wait wait.  Do you have the gall to infer that originalism might be a post hoc justification for interpreting questions of law in a way that is consistent a Justice's personal beliefs, rather than a foundational beacon of jurisprudential philosophy?  That's pure jiggery pokery.

FWIW, the dismantling of the administrative state has been a primary goal of conservative jurists for awhile now.  It bears some similarities to the debate raging about Roe, primarily in terms of the court's willingness to destroy governmental infrastructure without a ready replacement.  Like, there are good arguments that the administrative state has expanded beyond its legislative mandate, but that has generally been out of organizational necessity rather than some sort of underhanded executive branch overreach. To accept cert on these cases and then render decisions that curtail administrative power in specific instances is just leading to a swiss cheese arrangement that sets the administrative state up to fail by making it look incompetent because the court has destroyed key cogs in the system.

I like you.

[LAZER]

...and a defeat to unelected bureaucrats.

With the exception of SCOTUS

[jficke13]

In one sense, a right is a permission to do something or an entitlement to a specific service or treatment from others, and these rights have been called positive rights. However, in another sense, rights may allow or require inaction, and these are called negative rights; they permit or require doing nothing.

So what you are saying is that once a permission to do something is permitted it become a right and if that permission to do something is taken away then it only follows that that right was taken away.

Abortion will now be treated like guns; each state will have their own laws preventing us from exercising our constitutional rights to some degree.

Yeah... no?

"We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” "

Alito, writing for the majority, explicitly stated that "no such right [to obtain an abortion] is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision."

Your assertion that "abortion will be treated like guns" is foundationally flawed. The Court has held the 2nd amendment to protect an individual right to bear arms. Restrictions on that right must pass constitutional strict scrutiny. Restrictions on access to abortion have no such hurdle because, in the post-Dobbs landscape, there is no constitutional right to access an abortion.

[Dickthedribbler]

Hopefully, someone will Pelican Brief a few of these justices

So you're hoping that a few United States Supreme Court Justices are assassinated.

Interesting take.

To hope that someone is murdered because they disagree with you means you are very young or very stupid.

[Uncle Rico]

So you're hoping that a few United States Supreme Court Justices are assassinated.

Interesting take.

To hope that someone is murdered because they disagree with you means you are very young or very stupid.

Just helping them get to heaven quicker should make them happy.

[Merit Matters]

Just helping them get to heaven quicker should make them happy.

Character revealed.

[Uncle Rico]

Support a coup but afraid of a little bloodshed the other way and people turn into snowflakes.  Sad!

[Pakuni]

Support a coup but afraid of a little bloodshed the other way and people turn into snowflakes.  Sad!

The same people who think Congress needs to decide every nuance of the Clean Air Act also believe the vice president gets to decide the winner of a presidential election.

[MU82]

Support a coup but afraid of a little bloodshed the other way and people turn into snowflakes.  Sad!

#45, the nation's #1 traitor, screamed at his Secret Service to let the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and other cultists with weapons into his rally so they could march to the Capitol and commit unspeakable atrocities.

roQQet and his pals would have been thrilled with that. Guns, conspiracy theories and cultists doing 45's bidding ... talk about a winning hat trick!

[Dickthedribbler]

#45, the nation's #1 traitor, screamed at his Secret Service to let the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and other cultists with weapons into his rally so they could march to the Capitol and commit unspeakable atrocities.

roQQet and his pals would have been thrilled with that. Guns, conspiracy theories and cultists doing 45's bidding ... talk about a winning hat trick!

Source?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So you're hoping that a few United States Supreme Court Justices are assassinated.

Interesting take.

To hope that someone is murdered because they disagree with you means you are very young or very stupid.

This brings up an interesting question. At what point is violence justified for political change? The answer can't be never unless you think America should still be a part of her majesty's empire and you are anti-war 100% of the time.

I don't think we're there yet. I don't think we are particularly close. But I do see the road to it and that's a little terrifying.

[JWags85]

This brings up an interesting question. At what point is violence justified for political change? The answer can't be never unless you think America should still be a part of her majesty's empire and you are anti-war 100% of the time.

I don't think we're there yet. I don't think we are particularly close. But I do see the road to it and that's a little terrifying.

Id like to believe there is a substantial difference between violent/non-peaceful protest and assassinating political figures you don't agree with.

And the Revolutionary War is a weird comp.  Cause one was rebelling against a monarch who ruled remotely from across the ocean versus committing violence/murder against legally elected officials in your own domestic democratic government.

[Uncle Rico]

Id like to believe there is a substantial difference between violent/non-peaceful protest and assassinating political figures you don't agree with.

And the Revolutionary War is a weird comp.  Cause one was rebelling against a monarch who ruled remotely from across the ocean versus committing violence/murder against legally elected officials in your own domestic democratic government.

Devil’s advocate says the path is being created by restricting voting rights and manipulating access to voting.  One side is very much in favor of such things

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Id like to believe there is a substantial difference between violent/non-peaceful protest and assassinating political figures you don't agree with.

And the Revolutionary War is a weird comp.  Cause one was rebelling against a monarch who ruled remotely from across the ocean versus committing violence/murder against legally elected officials in your own domestic democratic government.

I didn't compare the two. I just said that there is obviously a point where violence is justified. I find myself wondering where that point is/should be. I mean we already saw that some in our country reached that point on Jan 6.

Also, personally, I find the idea of assassinating one individual to be a lot lower of a threshold than starting a war of rebellion.

[forgetful]

...and a defeat to unelected bureaucrats.

This case should never have even been heard. Instead, a bunch of unelected bureaucrats decided to hear the case and make a major decision that impacts all Americans in a negative way.

SCOTUS right now is the epitome of unelected bureaucrats.

[MU82]

This brings up an interesting question. At what point is violence justified for political change? The answer can't be never unless you think America should still be a part of her majesty's empire and you are anti-war 100% of the time.

I don't think we're there yet. I don't think we are particularly close. But I do see the road to it and that's a little terrifying.

Before the election, NPR did a series centered around a reporter who rode his bike around the entire country and, along the way, talked to people of all political persuasions. Guy logged thousands of miles on his bike.

Anyway, he did one interview with a far-far-far-right Trump supporter who was certain his man would be re-elected. The NPR guy asked something like, "What do you think will happen if Biden wins?" And the cultist answered, "There'd have to be a revolution." He spoke in a monotone voice and couldn't have been more calm as he said it, as if, "Yep, a revolution, of course." It was chilling to hear it.

And now we know that those like him were ready and willing to shed blood on 1/6/21. And after Wednesday's testimony, we know it would have been much, much worse if the Secret Service had acceded to the demented demands of #45 to shut down the weapon-screening equipment and let those with guns take part in his violent coup attempt.

Thousands -- maybe even hundreds of thousands -- on the extreme right agree with the guy who thinks a revolution is necessary.

Scary times for our country.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

You ain't seen nothing yet. The Court has annouced it is going to review a case that allows State Legislatures determine how elections are conducted, and such legislative decisions can't be reviewed by State courts.

Full on Christofascism.

[Uncle Rico]

You ain't seen nothing yet. The Court has annouced it is going to review a case that allows State Legislatures determine how elections are conducted, and such legislative decisions can't be reviewed by State courts.

Full on Christofascism.

Yup, this is straight up sick stuff