16
   

Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

 
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2022 05:03 pm
@snood,
Beyond comprehension. Who else would regulate it?
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2022 05:45 pm
@snood,
You're confusing the Supreme Court and President Biden.

Somehow.

1. Biden has kept the US under lockdown for two years (Trump shouldn't have allowed this either, but Biden was actively involved in fearmongering). This gutted many businesses, screwed over churches, and completely fucked education for a generation of kids. Btw, a number of people told him there was no medical justification for lockdowns (including the CDC), no medical justification for masks, and that despite vaccines people were still getting sick.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8046185/
Quote:
In total, we estimate that global maritime trade reduced by -7.0% to -9.6% during the first eight months of 2020, which is equal to around 206–286 million tonnes in volume losses and up to $225–412 billion USD in value losses.

You know, most of us would kill to have $412 billion. But the government throws that money into the toilet. Economic impact? Who cares, they say.
2. Cutting off a ready supply of oil and gas because he has some pipe dream (did you see what I did there?) that electric cars will solve our transportation problems. They even pushed this **** during the superbowl.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRUA5UGI7hs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NygapdLJaiU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUC1QA5gRcU
Actually?
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~emcd/ElectricMadness.pdf
Quote:
The BBC tried to take an electric car from London to Edinburgh. It took more than three days, slower than a Stage Coach. Strangely, people sometimes need to get to places quickly.

See, having a car that takes hours to charge is kinda not effective. Nor is foisting it on the public by screwing with the fuel lines using a virus (you had better believe it was not "terrorist hackers" that pulled this crap). Nor is shortselling oil.
3. All of this caused inflation due to scarcity, supply chain issues, and overall crap that most Americans don't want or need.
4. On top of this he is pushing us into a Ukraine-Russia war last I checked. Or did that mellow down?
5. Oh yeah, and let's create black-white drama. Because race wars are always wonderful.

The Supreme Court? Didn't nearly do this kinda ****. You're projecting your own insanity. Biden is intentionally trying to run the country into the ground, or is so senile that he doesn't know any better.

Supreme Court actions:
1. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., v. Bruen.
Quote:
New York, a “may issue” state, has a “proper cause” law on the books that requires would-be CCW permit–holders to demonstrate an above-and-beyond need for self-protection outside of the home. (Examples: an employee who regularly transports cash to the bank or someone who’s been receiving violent threats from an ex-partner.)

Supreme Court upheld this, saying that for most people, home defense is fine, and not a 2nd Amendment violation.
2. Dobbs vs Jackson
Quote:
We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.

The case did not as you assume "kill Roe vs Wade." Rather it returned the law back to a state's rights issue, where it should have been in the first place. You want abortion on demand? Move from Texas to Vermont. Stop demanding that unwilling Texans perform an abortion for you. They don't want to. They probably would prefer that your baby's zombie whip out a gun and shoot you down.

Then I looked at some more decisions here...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/
These are not, as you assume, over-the-top decisions. They are for the most part fair, just, and a good deal more sane than Biden ever is. Or you, apparently.
Builder
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 02:26 am
@bulmabriefs144,
They're not just confusing facts; they're denying reality, here.

hightor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 03:19 am
@Builder,
Quote:
They're not just confusing facts; they're denying reality, here.

Says the moon landing denier to the flat-earther. Rich.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 03:26 am
@hightor,
You're about as entertaining as a nasal bleed.

hightor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 03:29 am
@Builder,
You need to write in CAPS – I can't hear you.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 03:31 am
Quote:
Today at noon, Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in as the first Black female justice on the Supreme Court.

Before Justice Brown took her oath, the court also signaled the end of the federal government as we know it.

In the past, the Supreme Court has operated on the basis of “stare decisis,” which literally means “to stand by things decided.” The purpose of that principle is to make changes incrementally so the law stays consistent and evenly applied, which promotes social stability. On occasion, the court does break precedent, notably in 1954 with the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision, which overturned the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision that rubber stamped racial segregation. When that sort of a major change happens, both the court and elected officials work hard to explain that they are changing the law to make it more in line with our Constitution, and to move people along with that change.

With the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision of last Friday, the court simply tore up 49 years of law and history, ending federal recognition of a constitutional right Americans have enjoyed since 1973.

Today, the court’s decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency reversed almost 100 years of jurisprudence by arguing that Congress cannot delegate authority on “major questions” to agencies in the executive branch. At stake were EPA regulations that would push fossil fuel producers toward clean energy in order to combat climate change. The vote was 6 to 3, along ideological lines. That the court agreed to hear the case despite the fact that the rules being challenged had been abandoned suggested they were determined to make a point.

That point was to hamstring federal regulation of business. The argument at the heart of this decision is called the “nondelegation doctrine,” which says that Congress, which constitutes the legislative branch of the government, cannot delegate legislative authority to the executive branch. Most of the regulatory bodies in our government are housed in the executive branch. So the nondelegation doctrine would hamstring the modern regulatory state.

To avoid this extreme conclusion, the majority on the court embraced the “major questions” doctrine, which Chief Justice Roberts used today for the first time in a majority opinion.

That doctrine says that Congress must not delegate “major” issues to an agency, saying that such major issues must be explicitly authorized by Congress. But the abuse of the Senate filibuster by Republican senators means that no such laws stand a hope of passing. So the Supreme Court has essentially stopped the federal government from responding as effectively as it must to climate change. And that will have international repercussions: the inability of the U.S. government to address the crisis means that other countries will likely fall behind as well. The decision will likely apply not just to the EPA, but to a whole host of business regulations.

As recently as 2001, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the nondelegation argument in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who said the court must trust Congress to take care of its own power. But now it has become law.

In the dissent, written by Justice Elena Kagan, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Kagan argued that Congress had, in fact, properly given authority to the EPA to act, recognizing that agencies need to be able to respond appropriately to new and big problems. “Congress knows what it doesn’t and can’t know when it drafts a statute; and Congress therefore gives an expert agency the power to address issues—even significant ones—as and when they arise.” She noted that “[t]he Clean Air Act was major legislation, designed to deal with a major public policy issue.” “This is not the Attorney General regulating medical care, or even the CDC regulating landlord-tenant relations. It is EPA (that’s the Environmental Protection Agency, in case the majority forgot) acting to address the greatest environmental challenge of our time. She concluded: “The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision-maker on climate policy.I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

Kagan’s dissent noted the hypocrisy of the Republican justices claiming to be originalists when they are, in fact, inventing new doctrines to achieve the ends they wish. “The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it,” she wrote. “When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the ‘major questions doctrine’ magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards. Today, one of those broader goals makes itself clear: Prevent agencies from doing important work, even though that is what Congress directed.”

Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) applauded the ruling, saying it limited the power of “unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.”

The court also said today that it will consider making even greater changes to our country. It will hear Moore v. Harper, a case about whether state legislatures alone have the power to set election rules even if their laws violate state constitutions.

The case comes from North Carolina, where the state supreme court rejected a dramatically partisan gerrymander. Republicans say that the state court cannot stop the legislature’s carving up of the state because of the “independent state legislatures doctrine.” This is a new idea, based on the clause in the U.S. Constitution providing that “[t]he times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” Those adhering to the independent state legislature theory ignore the second part of that provision.

Those advancing the independent state legislature theory also point to another clause of the Constitution. It says: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legis­lature thereof may direct, a Number of Elect­ors.”

Until now, states have interpreted “legislatures” to mean the state’s general lawmaking processes, which include shared power and checks and balances among the three branches of state government. Now, a radical minority insists that a legislature is a legislature alone, unchecked by state courts or state constitutions that prohibit gerrymandering. This interpretation of the Constitution is radical and new. It caught on in 2015, when Republicans wanted to get rid of an independent redistricting commission in Arizona.

This doctrine is, of course, what Trump and his allies pushed for to keep him in power in 2020: Republican state legislatures throwing out the will of the people and sending electors for Trump to Congress rather than the Biden electors the majority voted for.

That doctrine would also give to state legislatures the power to control who can vote, and how and where they can do so. It would strip power from elections commissions and secretaries of state, and it would take from state courts the power to challenge gerrymandering or voter suppression. Republicans currently control 30 state legislatures, in large part thanks to the gerrymandering and voter suppression in place in a number of those states.

Revered conservative judge J. Michael Luttig has been trying for months to sound the alarm that this doctrine is a blueprint for Republicans to steal the 2024 election. In April, before the court agreed to take on the Moore v. Harper case, he wrote: “Trump and the Republicans can only be stopped from stealing the 2024 election at this point if the Supreme Court rejects the independent state legislature doctrine (thus allowing state court enforcement of state constitutional limitations on legislatively enacted election rules and elector appointments) and Congress amends the Electoral Count Act to constrain Congress' own power to reject state electoral votes and decide the presidency.”

And yet in March, when the Supreme Court let the state supreme court’s decision against the radical map stay in place for 2022, justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh indicated they are open to the idea that state courts have no role in overseeing the rules for federal elections.

In the one term Trump’s three justices have been on the court, they have decimated the legal landscape under which we have lived for generations, slashing power from the federal government, where Congress represents the majority, and returning it to states, where a Republican minority can impose its will. Thanks to the skewing of our electoral system, those states are now poised to take control of our federal government permanently.

Almost exactly 35 years ago, when President Ronald Reagan nominated originalist Robert Bork for the Supreme Court, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) recognized his legal theory for what it was: an unraveling of the modern United States.

“Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

“America is a better and freer nation than Robert Bork thinks,” Kennedy said.

And yet, here we are.

hcr
Builder
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 04:30 am
@hightor,
Quote:
Almost exactly 35 years ago, when President Ronald Reagan nominated originalist Robert Bork for the Supreme Court, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) recognized his legal theory for what it was: an unraveling of the modern United States.


History repeats itself. Over, and over, and over again.

Layer, upon layer, upon layer....
You fold it, and roll it, and fold it again.....
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 06:01 am
@hightor,
The funny part is?

My understanding of flat Earth makes it rather easy to visit the moon. You don't even leave Earth's atmosphere (because I hold the near sun, near moon position).

So while I am skeptical of the whole nine planets solar system, deciding it's basically an offshoot of this,
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/thor/images/3/3b/Yggdrasil.png/revision/latest?cb=20150510132547
travel to the moon or sun would be alot more accessible than say Mars.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 06:38 am
https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1lerHm6qhSKJjSspnq6A79XXaO/DIN934-304-Stainless-Steel-Hex-Nut-Bolt-Screw-Cap-M1-1-2-1-4-1-6.jpg_Q90.jpg_.webp
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 07:38 am
@hightor,
Not only that, but they are poised to completely change our future elections in the next session.

Supreme Court's Potential Changes to Elections Spark Panic: 'Judicial Coup'

It just gets worse and worse, I am afraid of how it will be in twenty years. What if anything can logically be done to stop them?
Frank Apisa
 
  4  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 07:52 am
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:

Not only that, but they are poised to completely change our future elections in the next session.

Supreme Court's Potential Changes to Elections Spark Panic: 'Judicial Coup'

It just gets worse and worse, I am afraid of how it will be in twenty years. What if anything can logically be done to stop them?


Rev, Hightor...

...we have got to come to grips that we are screwed from here to Hell and back.

Our only hope is that the vast majority of the electorate comes to its senses...and votes AGAINST the Republicans. I doubt there will be much enthusiasm for voting FOR the Democrats, but there is at least a chance that enthusiasm for voting AGAINST the Republicans (and more of the disaster we are facing) can be generated.

If the Republicans get control of the White House AND the congress...America as we know it will cease to exist.

The next 30+ years will be absolute hell for the sane side in America.
Walter Hinteler
 
  6  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 08:06 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
If the Republicans get control of the White House AND the congress...America as we know it will cease to exist.
And if not - the Supreme Court might do the job.
Frank Apisa
 
  4  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 08:15 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
If the Republicans get control of the White House AND the congress...America as we know it will cease to exist.
And if not - the Supreme Court might do the job.


Yup, the SCOTUS MIGHT, Walter.

But if the present GOP gets control of the White House and Congress...IT WILL.

The entire world is in special danger here. No country on the planet can feel comfortable with the United States in the hands of these monsters.

If the GOP gets control, we have got to split up...partition.

Yeah, very serious medicine, but VERY SERIOUS MEDICINE will be called for.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 09:19 am
@revelette1,
You're embarrassing yourselves.

The left is always going on about how the right is filled with conspiracy theories. Here you are wearing a tinfoil hat and predicting Supreme Court will do terrible things.

When Trump got elected, did everything they forecasted would happen happen? No, he was busy most of his time dealing with court case (some of which were made on the spot), no wall got finished, no corrupt lefties that you love got sent to prison, and no wars that Hillary said he'd start got started. When Biden was elected, do you think conservatives had everything happen to them that Biden planned? No, it was plenty miserable, but no.

So take a deep breath, slowly walk to the dial (I'm riffing on how old your TV is) and turn it to the off position. Go out and spend the day walking in national parks. Disengage from the End Times forecasting. Life does go on. And Jesus wants you to know that your sufferings are to test you. Not like a test that you can fail, but the metallurgical term.

Whatever bad things the Supreme Court can supposedly do, you'll be a better person for it. Doesn't this sound wonderful?
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 09:35 am
@Walter Hinteler,
And by the way, that is nonsense.

Conservative. CONSERVative.

The nature of a conservative is that if they take over, they put the brakes on things. They are boring, they spend most of their time working, but one thing they are not is radical. Radical means to tear a tree up by the root, conservative means to leave it. The radical left is projecting. And we have already seen the result. More inflation, more wokeness, and crazier ****.
Btw, even if there was a radical right, you know what would happen? America would go back 100 years. It would very definitely still be America.

The people projecting all this gloom and doom? Probably no flag anymore, no constitution, no three sections of government, and definitely no electoral college (they've said so). Remaking America as a socialist country. These are people who would unmake America. You know what the GOP would do if they took over? Probably just stall Biden's agenda and drink beer the rest of the time.

America as well know it might cease to exist? No conservative has ever massively overhauled America. Trump is a radical rightist. He's also a rare breed. Most of them stall and do nothing. In sixteen years of a RINO, and two leftists, America has gotten pretty close to being changed. Trump did nothing more than tilt the seesaw back a bit before everyone slid off (yes, he's kinda heavy).

I know this because I'm part of the right and understand my own party. Do you understand the left confidently?
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 10:20 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Our only hope is that the vast majority of the electorate comes to its senses...and votes AGAINST the Republicans. I doubt there will be much enthusiasm for voting FOR the Democrats, but there is at least a chance that enthusiasm for voting AGAINST the Republicans (and more of the disaster we are facing) can be generated.


A recent opinion poll reported that 85% of USAmericans think that "the country is headed in the wrong direction" – including a large number of Democrats. It was covered as a bad sign for Dems in '22 and '24. People are blaming Biden for everything – the economy, covid19, the war in Ukraine, the overturning of Roe v Wade. So, as usual, myopic voters react by supporting the opposition. But the Republicans don't have any plans to fix anything; they simply want to destroy what's left of any federal response to social problems, business regulation, and the climate crisis. "States' Rights" – we fought a war to bury that idiocy. And now all the pieces are in place to restore a modern Confederate States of America.
blatham
 
  6  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 10:26 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
I know this because I'm part of the right and understand my own party. Do you understand the left confidently?

A less crippled intellect would recognize that the second sentence is answered by the "logic" of the first sentence.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 10:35 am
@hightor,
Yes. As I've suggested before, movement conservative leaders are acutely cognizant that they are very close to achieving their long-sought goals and that is evident in the vigor with which they are now proceeding.
0 Replies
 
thack45
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 10:45 am
@Frank Apisa,
I don't like to indulge in "mights", "coulds" or hyperbole in general (and don't care for media doing the same), but I do see a slight possibility that the term "American refugees" exists at some point in the not too distant future.

More likely I suppose we just look at history and note what it has taken in the past to move the country (not without much kicking and screaming) to the left.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 08/16/2022 at 08:18:00