-
This post is deleted!
-
Actually It didn't rule against any EPA action programme but said Congress would have to clearly authorise that power to the EPA. Congress (the elected representatives of the people, remember) has previously rejected the EPA's proposed carbon limiting programme.
All the SCOTUS has done is rule the EPA can't act against the will of democratically elected bodies and act as if it's above Congress. After listening to the ex-EPA woman in the clip, it seems a very sensible decision.
-
I'll agree that she's not a great advertisement for the EPA, although there are plenty of people in Congress who are even less coherent.
Technically you're right, SCOTUS didn't rule against the EPA standards, it ruled against the EPA'S authority to impose those standards on the states. The end result is pretty much the same though.
The problem of course is that Congress is totally dysfunctional. They're not experts, and generally not willing to listen to experts, so nothing will get done.
The other problem of course is that the senate - which can and will block any climate action - is thoroughly unrepresentative. California has the same power as Wyoming, despite being about 80x more populous. So 18% of the population controls 50% of the senate. (Meanwhile 4 million people in DC & Puerto Rico have no voice in the senate at all).
Frankly I don't care if it's the EPA or POTUS or Congress or the states setting the rules. But the bottom line is that even though the majority of Americans want proper climate action, the EPA and POTUS can't do anything, and Congress won't. It's a common theme, the system in the US is broken right now.
-
I'm neither right, wrong, even technically, as those were just the facts.
The Senate isn't meant to be representative of the US population as it's a federal system, where each state makes up it's own laws on a representative basis, that's the the role of the House of Representatives. And far from being "thoroughly unrepresentative", The split in the Senate (50/50) pretty much mirrors the HoR (220/210).
Perhaps if the POTUS got off his arse, put away his divisive politics, partisan point-scoring & actually did his job, he'd likely be able to build consensus and deliver on climate change in a legal way - just like Reagan, Bush, Clinton and every other President has done on important issues.
-
@gibbon-rib I don’t think many people, outside of the media and the left, are worried about a supposed climate “crisis” right now. The most important crisis at the moment is gas going from about $2.20 to $5.94 a gallon and inflation. And that price is at Sam’s Club and the cheapest you can get.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
I'm neither right, wrong, even technically, as those were just the facts.
The Senate isn't meant to be representative of the US population as it's a federal system, where each state makes up it's own laws on a representative basis, that's the the role of the House of Representatives. And far from being "thoroughly unrepresentative", The split in the Senate (50/50) pretty much mirrors the HoR (220/210).
Perhaps if the POTUS got off his arse, put away his divisive politics, partisan point-scoring & actually did his job, he'd likely be able to build consensus and deliver on climate change in a legal way - just like Reagan, Bush, Clinton and every other President has done on important issues.
Time 20201107: "In a forceful and eloquent victory speech Saturday night, President-elect Joe Biden vowed to usher in "a time to heal" in America."
The Hill 20201107: "President-elect Joe Biden called on a deeply divided United States to come together and “heal” "
This repeated the smooth, mellifluous charm of the magic negro¹ at his inauguration in 2009 (as he settled in to crank up the race hatred).
Neither of them meant it, but deceit has become a way of life in the disintegrating USA.
"The problem of course is that Congress is totally dysfunctional." That novel idea would hold water if the electorate acted with similar astonished astonishment.
Since the advent of the modern party system in 1857, when the President's party holds the majority in both chambers, it is considered a “unified government”.
The government has been unified 47 times, 22 under Democratic control and 25 under Republican control. That is, in 81 “governments” during 165 years they have had unification 47 times, with separate House and Senate control 34 times. Neither side has absolute control, both sides have the opportunity to set the agenda.
That would be an involved electorate taking the opportunity every two years to retain or change the dopes, functioning as designed.
¹ the quote belongs to some palooka named Spike Lee ... "popularized in 2001 by film director Spike Lee" ... who, if you look, appears to be authorised to say such things.
-
@Mick-Gold-Coast-QLD said in US Politics:
Time 20201107: "In a forceful and eloquent victory speech Saturday night, President-elect Joe Biden vowed to usher in "a time to heal" in America."
I have a friend in Pennsylvania who tells me that's what she is certain the US public wants - someone who may do their own thing but who shows respect to the opposing viewpoint.
Biden has had opportunity after opportunity to do just that, but seems determined to copy Trump in ramping up the devise rhetoric.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Mick-Gold-Coast-QLD said in US Politics:
Time 20201107: "In a forceful and eloquent victory speech Saturday night, President-elect Joe Biden vowed to usher in "a time to heal" in America."
I have a friend in Pennsylvania who tells me that's what she is certain the US public wants - someone who may do their own thing but who shows respect to the opposing viewpoint.
Biden has had opportunity after opportunity to do just that, but seems determined to copy Trump in ramping up the devise rhetoric.
I hope that is what they want. And that they aren't kept waiting much longer. But with Trump still sniffing around I can't see it
-
'This scenario isn’t just plausible: it’s probable.'
'Wolf Blitzer announces that DeSantis has won the election, and millions of people pour into the streets to protest. They’re met with a hail of bullets as Republican-affiliated militias have been rehearsing for this exact moment.'
-
Putting aside the mass shooting extrapolation (which wasn't helpful) for a second, why do you believe that the part about States voting in spite of the popular vote isn't possible or likely given what we have seen happen so far and what's now happening?
-
Heard of Hartman and the bloke seems a bit of a fruitcake who argues the 2000 & 2004 elections were rigged by Dubya and Spanish-language radio stations are involved in a conspiracy to push Republican propaganda.
But it's an interesting read you posted and wonder if we are starting to see the demonization of the SCOTUS by the US Left in the same way Trump, QAnon & MAGA demonised Election officials in 2020.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Mick-Gold-Coast-QLD said in US Politics:
Time 20201107: "In a forceful and eloquent victory speech Saturday night, President-elect Joe Biden vowed to usher in "a time to heal" in America."
I have a friend in Pennsylvania who tells me that's what she is certain the US public wants - someone who may do their own thing but who shows respect to the opposing viewpoint.
Biden has had opportunity after opportunity to do just that, but seems determined to copy Trump in ramping up the devise rhetoric.
I suspect that if there was a presidential candidate who respectfully acknowledged opposing viewpoints they would be a very popular winner of the election.
I also suspect that there's little chance of that happening in the near future, because such a candidate would have no hope of winning their party's primary.
-
@voodoo said in US Politics:
Putting aside the mass shooting extrapolation (which wasn't helpful) for a second, why do you believe that the part about States voting in spite of the popular vote isn't possible or likely given what we have seen happen so far and what's now happening?
Absolutely. Adding the bit about militia shooting protesters and police assisting them was pointless, and weakens the article.
The rest of it seems on point though. Hard to say whether it's probable or just possible, but the fact that the mechanism for states to ignore the results exists (or could exist very soon) is scary enough.
-
@voodoo said in US Politics:
Putting aside the mass shooting extrapolation (which wasn't helpful) for a second, why do you believe that the part about States voting in spite of the popular vote isn't possible or likely given what we have seen happen so far and what's now happening?
I knew that the requirement for the electoral college votes weren't legislated in every State to reflect the popular vote or proportional representation. I feel if such an event happened, it would quickly become a constitutional issue anyway.
-
@gibbon-rib said in US Politics:
The rest of it seems on point though. Hard to say whether it's probable or just possible, but the fact that the mechanism for states to ignore the results exists (or could exist very soon) is scary enough.
May be wrong, but I think there are a few states who have never actually removed their Jim Crow laws.
According to august journals and serious, celebrated liberal politicians, the SCOTUS is soon going to ban contraception, made gay sex illegal and allow deliberate discrimination against anyone who isn't straight and male.
I'm sure we won't have to wait long for someone to claim the court has definite plans to repeal the 1964 rulings and bring back Jim Crow & segregation
-
@Victor-Meldrew I need to re-read it but it was (apparently) telling that Justice Thomas referenced other decisions that were linked or made on a similar basis to Roe v Wade. But the decision about interracial marriage wasn't listed even though it sits with contraception and same sex marriage. If all of that is true, and there is a LOT of shit to wade through (sorry, I had too!) to get accurate info, then I could see some people be nervous about those other rights.
More interesting to me is the statements of the last 2-3 Justices' that they wouldn't repeal Roe v Wade - they were possibly framing that they wouldn't initiate it, but neglected to say that they'd overturn it if it came up via other means, but that's some murky shit imo. -
Yeah, his argument is that those decisions are made on the same basis, while the others said this one only covers abortion... who knows.
Collins and a few other senators look like extreme chumps as they apparently got (some sort of) 'guarantee' from these justices that Roe wouldn't be on the table. Idiots.
Edit: The real big thing is that Kavanaugh now seems to be the swing vote, rather than the Chief justice, which is a lot of power in a junior justice's hands.
-
@gt12 so the key to future judgements is throwing an epic keg party and getting Big K onboard!
I don't know how much trust to place in the Justices as they go through their confirmation hearings. But all sorts of vids are doing the rounds of at least three of them (including 2 of the last 3 appointments) saying they wouldn't touch Roe v Wade. So they were either lying or dancing around the truth by saying they wouldn't do anything, but not saying that if it came up they'd rule against it.
US Politics