5-4 Right Wing Court Majority. What Will They Do?

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, KRC said:

 

If I had to pick one, 6. Usually, I just fall asleep. Where is The Boring Drunk option?

 

[boyst]

I actually shut the !@#$ up when drunk.  I'm #7

[/dev/null]

30 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

I actually shut the !@#$ up when drunk.  I'm #7

you should drink more often

[3rdnlng]

Where's the Happy Drunk option?

[Joe Miner]

[Deranged Rhino]

2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Where's the Happy Drunk option?

 

I figured it was synonymous with Dancing Drunk... but it should be there. 

[njbuff]

What kind of drunk can you be if you don't drink?

 

?

[/dev/null]

17 minutes ago, njbuff said:

What kind of drunk can you be if you don't drink?

 

?

 

Schrödinger's drunk

[BillStime]

On 10/5/2018 at 12:41 PM, Tiberius said:

Then you got the court you want! 

Very prophetic 

[B-Man]

 

 

WV vs EPA

Congress did not give the EPA the power to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the (Obama era) Clean Power Plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

25 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

WV vs EPA

Congress did not give the EPA the power to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the (Obama era) Clean Power Plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What's weird about this is that the rule at the heart of this case wasn't even in effect. It had been revoked during the Trump administration. This probably should have been mooted out. But SCOTUS gonna SCOTUS.

[Tiberius]

39 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

WV vs EPA

Congress did not give the EPA the power to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the (Obama era) Clean Power Plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sided with fossil fuel companies. Best court money can buy 

[B-Man]

 

 

"The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants..."

 

"... dealing a blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to address climate change. The vote was 6 to 3, with the court’s three liberal justices in dissent, saying that the majority had stripped the E.P.A. of 'the power to respond to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.'... 

 

The implications of the ruling could extend well beyond environmental policy and further signal that the court’s newly expanded conservative majority is deeply skeptical of the power of administrative agencies to address major issues facing the nation and the planet."

Writes Adam Liptak in the NYT.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/06/30/us/supreme-court-epa#epa-carbon-emissions-scotus

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

"The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants..."

 

"... dealing a blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to address climate change. The vote was 6 to 3, with the court’s three liberal justices in dissent, saying that the majority had stripped the E.P.A. of 'the power to respond to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.'... 

 

The implications of the ruling could extend well beyond environmental policy and further signal that the court’s newly expanded conservative majority is deeply skeptical of the power of administrative agencies to address major issues facing the nation and the planet."

Writes Adam Liptak in the NYT.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/06/30/us/supreme-court-epa#epa-carbon-emissions-scotus

 

 

 

 

So more pollution? Hurrah! A victory against the fresh air crowd! 

[ChiGoose]

Well, this isn't good...

On the independent state legislature theory:

Quote

The Consti­tu­tion deleg­ates power to admin­is­ter federal elec­tions to the states, subject to Congres­sional over­ride. There is, however, a disagree­ment about how much power is deleg­ated and to which state actors exactly.

 

There are two relev­ant clauses. One is the Elec­tions Clause, which reads, “The 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.”

 

The other is the Pres­id­en­tial Elect­ors Clause, which reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legis­lature thereof may direct, a Number of Elect­ors.”

 

The dispute hinges on how to under­stand the word “legis­lature.” The long-running under­stand­ing is that it refers to each state’s general lawmak­ing processes, includ­ing all the normal proced­ures and limit­a­tions. So if a state consti­tu­tion subjects legis­la­tion to being blocked by a governor’s veto or citizen refer­en­dum, elec­tion laws can be blocked via the same means. And state courts must ensure that laws for federal elec­tions, like all laws, comply with their state consti­tu­tions.

 

Proponents of the inde­pend­ent state legis­lature theory reject this tradi­tional read­ing, insist­ing that these clauses give state legis­latures exclus­ive and near-abso­lute power to regu­late federal elec­tions. The result? When it comes to federal elec­tions, legis­lat­ors would be free to viol­ate the state consti­tu­tion and state courts could­n’t stop them.

 

Extreme versions of the theory would block legis­latures from deleg­at­ing their author­ity to offi­cials like governors, secret­ar­ies of state, or elec­tion commis­sion­ers, who currently play import­ant roles in admin­is­ter­ing elec­tions.

 

Somehow, I'm not optimistic that SCOTUS will end up ruling in a way that's good for democracy...

[B-Man]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So more pollution? Hurrah! A victory against the fresh air crowd! 

 

 

NO.

 

 

Less government overreach.

 

Hurrah.

 

 

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

NO.

 

 

Less government overreach.

 

Hurrah.

 

 

Cutting off our nose to spite our face 

[ChiGoose]

Lol. SCOTUS changed constitutional law enough this term that the bar exam had to release a statement:

 

Quote

Examinees taking the NCBE-developed July 2022 MBE, MPT, and MEE will not be required to be familiar with this term's US Supreme Court decisions.

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

50 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

"The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants..."

 

"... dealing a blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to address climate change. The vote was 6 to 3, with the court’s three liberal justices in dissent, saying that the majority had stripped the E.P.A. of 'the power to respond to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.'... 

 

The implications of the ruling could extend well beyond environmental policy and further signal that the court’s newly expanded conservative majority is deeply skeptical of the power of administrative agencies to address major issues facing the nation and the planet."

Writes Adam Liptak in the NYT.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/06/30/us/supreme-court-epa#epa-carbon-emissions-scotus

 

 

 

 

In a majority opinion authored by chief justice John Roberts, the justices ruled the Environmental Protection Agency was not specifically authorized by Congress to reduce carbon emissions when it was set up in 1970. The ruling leaves the Biden administration dependent on passing legislation if it wants to implement sweeping regulations to curb emissions.

 

So far the common theme of the court is legislate through the legislature.  

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Making states more powerful is basically the beginning stages of secession. It’s happening.