Guest Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 42 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: As far as the EPA decision goes, it just seems like the court is saying that Congress could address this with legislation. Correct. People can hate on this court all they want, but they are mostly laying bare what a useless document the constitution is in modern times because the government derived from a plain reading of the text is a tremendously useless government today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 3 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Correct. People can hate on this court all they want, but they are mostly laying bare what a useless document the constitution is in modern times because the government derived from a plain reading of the text is a tremendously useless government today. I think we should hate them even more for it. If you're driving a car over a rickety bridge and your passenger is an engineer, you don't let him out half-way so he can pull out some pins and bolts and proclaim "the people who maintain this should really use better materials" as the entire thing collapses around you. Yes, these things should be set by law. But they haven't been, and the regressive court is overturning these previous conventions/rulings because they disagree with them, not because they care about how procedurally correct the rulings were. If someone I know is taking heart medication they are getting illegally from a pharmacist because they don't qualify for insurance, I'm not going to stop them from taking it before I remedy the situation, even if the "correct" solution is to fix the insurance issue. The outcome matters more than the procedure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 If we are going to say that the executive can't do all of the vile shit they did during the Trump administration in regards to things like immigration because it was never actually codified in a law passed by Congress, then we should be consistent that the executive can also not do (good) shit in regards to the environment because it was never actually codified in a law passed by Congress. Should the Feds have the power to regulate CO2? Sure. But it has to be done in accordance with the Constitution and existing law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 3 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: If we are going to say that the executive can't do all of the vile shit they did during the Trump administration in regards to things like immigration because it was never actually codified in a law passed by Congress, then we should be consistent that the executive can also not do (good) shit in regards to the environment because it was never actually codified in a law passed by Congress. Should the Feds have the power to regulate CO2? Sure. But it has to be done in accordance with the Constitution and existing law. No. Results > procedure. Note - I am not saying ends justify the means. The ends justify ignoring procedural roadblocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said: No. Results > procedure. Note - I am not saying ends justify the means. The ends justify ignoring procedural roadblocks. So the border wall being funded with DoD money is fine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_MH Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 19 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Correct. People can hate on this court all they want, but they are mostly laying bare what a useless document the constitution is in modern times because the government derived from a plain reading of the text is a tremendously useless government today. While this is true, this court is perfectly willing to overturn Obergefell because Congress isn't doing their job, but will they also go after Loving for the same reason? No. They won't. On its face it's plain as day that these rulings are ideological and not strictly from trying to be as anally accurate as possible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 26 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Correct. People can hate on this court all they want, but they are mostly laying bare what a useless document the constitution is in modern times because the government derived from a plain reading of the text is a tremendously useless government today. some would say then it’s working as designed. Especially those that a are happy with some of these decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 7 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: So the border wall being funded with DoD money is fine? No, because the border wall is stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 1 hour ago, mclumber1 said: As far as the EPA decision goes, it just seems like the court is saying that Congress could address this with legislation. do you really think this court would allow that to stand 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 ive said it before and ill say it again: the legislature is the most powerful of the co-equal branchs by design and yet they're doing everything they fucking can to be anything but be the least powerful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal-El814 Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 58 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: If we are going to say that the executive can't do all of the vile shit they did during the Trump administration in regards to things like immigration because it was never actually codified in a law passed by Congress, then we should be consistent that the executive can also not do (good) shit in regards to the environment because it was never actually codified in a law passed by Congress. Should the Feds have the power to regulate CO2? Sure. But it has to be done in accordance with the Constitution and existing law. Tired: intellectual consistency Wired: doing the right thing 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said: I think we should hate them even more for it. If you're driving a car over a rickety bridge and your passenger is an engineer, you don't let him out half-way so he can pull out some pins and bolts and proclaim "the people who maintain this should really use better materials" as the entire thing collapses around you. Yes, these things should be set by law. But they haven't been, and the regressive court is overturning these previous conventions/rulings because they disagree with them, not because they care about how procedurally correct the rulings were. If someone I know is taking heart medication they are getting illegally from a pharmacist because they don't qualify for insurance, I'm not going to stop them from taking it before I remedy the situation, even if the "correct" solution is to fix the insurance issue. The outcome matters more than the procedure. The court’s job is not and has not been to find solutions to the constitution Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 Just now, sblfilms said: The court’s job is not and has not been to find solutions to the constitution also: the court, or this court makes a difference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 2 hours ago, Kal-El814 said: Absolute shithole country. Judicial review for me, not for thee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 35 minutes ago, sblfilms said: The court’s job is not and has not been to find solutions to the constitution It's also not their job to be ideological and decide on the outcome before they find the rationalization, but here we are. The only thing that matters is the outcome. Good decisions will involve bullshit reasonings in order to get the right thing done (Roe was one example). It doesn't matter if it's SCOTUS' job to do these things, they are the only ones that could because the legislative branch has been frozen for 50 years. SCOTUS not destroying America > SCOTUS being technically correct that it is Congress' job to save America (when they won't) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 51 minutes ago, sblfilms said: The court’s job is not and has not been to find solutions to the constitution Instead they're just making shit up based on their feelings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucoe Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 5 minutes ago, Jason said: Instead they're just making shit up based on their feelings. Which is why I should be on the Supreme Court. I feel, man. I feel a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 24 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said: Good decisions will involve bullshit reasonings in order to get the right thing done (Roe was one example) wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 4 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: wrong Bad reasoning that results in good outcomes > good reasoning that results in bad outcomes. Obviously, good reason that results in good outcomes > both. But that's not politically possible in the US atm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 Just now, CitizenVectron said: Bad reasoning that results in good outcomes > good reasoning that results in bad outcomes. Obviously, good reason that results in good outcomes > both. But that's not politically possible in the US atm. it was good reasoning, its bullshit right wing narrative of 'poorly reasoned decision' that has been absorbed whole cloth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted June 30, 2022 Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: it was good reasoning, its bullshit right wing narrative of 'poorly reasoned decision' that has been absorbed whole cloth Ah, I misunderstood what you meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyphoidHater Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 1 hour ago, Jason said: Ok......do something besides tweet 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 39 minutes ago, TyphoidHater said: Ok......do something besides tweet That would mean Pelosi has to do something so lol 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 41 minutes ago, TyphoidHater said: Ok......do something besides tweet What can she do on her own? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted July 1, 2022 Author Share Posted July 1, 2022 41 minutes ago, TyphoidHater said: Ok......do something besides tweet What do you expect a House Rep to do? The House has already been pretty active on a bunch of stuff, but the Senate and President aren't matching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 Generous calling them scholars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyphoidHater Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 I'd like to see her repeating her late show appearance points ad naseum. Drop soundbites everywhere. Sit in the front row every day and make Pelosi ignore your request for a minute. Call her out when she does. Try to convince other members (progressive caucus?) to do the same. Try ANYTHING else since what's happening now isn't working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyHell Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 16 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: it was good reasoning, its bullshit right wing narrative of 'poorly reasoned decision' that has been absorbed whole cloth No. Roe should have been codified. Roe was not good reasoning, and most people involved in the law have been talking about it for a long time. It's not just conservative lawyers who saw that no part of the constitution supported the decision. Liberal lawyers have been telling people forever. The problem is that in a sane world there would be no reason to revisit it, but here we are, with Nazi Germany 2: Legal Boogaloo. And then the "Obama didn't have 60 votes" nonsense. He didn't even try, he just kicked the can down the road. I'd accept defending him if he at least attempted to whip congress into action. Instead, he said it wasn't an important part of his agenda, and never spoke of it again. Conservatives only did what they have been promising for decades. Democrats stood by and never made any attempt to stop them. And Skeletor still isn't doing anything except begging for donations. Maybe she'll clap, after her ice cream. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyHell Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 7 hours ago, TyphoidHater said: I'd like to see her repeating her late show appearance points ad naseum. Drop soundbites everywhere. Sit in the front row every day and make Pelosi ignore your request for a minute. Call her out when she does. Try to convince other members (progressive caucus?) to do the same. Try ANYTHING else since what's happening now isn't working. SoC is one of the few who can't do anything. This isn't on her, She's one of the few truly vocal people in the house who actually fights for good things, (also nonsense like LatinX, but thats a separate nonsense issue). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 3 hours ago, BloodyHell said: No. Roe should have been codified. Roe was not good reasoning, and most people involved in the law have been talking about it for a long time. It's not just conservative lawyers who saw that no part of the constitution supported the decision. Liberal lawyers have been telling people forever. Because they’ve bought textualism whole cloth like a bunch of morons. It’s a conservative framework that came out of the post Roe world in conservative circles. Without the basis of substantive due process (the basis of Roe) you effectively have no rights, without it is legal formalism and maybe procedural due process where the government can do whatever the hell it wants as long as they do the right paperwork (they can but that should not be the basis of our supposedly free and democratic government). what substantive due process says is that there are some rights that the government cannot regulate, enumerated or not. Taking the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments into consideration it is clear to see that there is an unstated right to privacy protected by the constitution. That’s where you get the often criticized penumbras language like it’s some fucking gotcha like we’re subject to an ancient logic puzzle when the people writing this shit didn’t put that much thought into it. Some rights simply aren’t listed, like the right to travel, and the constitution is not a full list of rights, it even says so! buying into the textual or originalist arguments you get to manipulate legislative intent, definitions, common meaning, etc. these strictly speaking will inevitably lead to insane bullshit like the independent legislature theory. Because it can be a logical extension of the text itself and lawyers love that shit. but fortunately you don’t have to listen to that stuff when making a values argument because the law is a fiction, and scotus isn’t a logicians committee. So called legal experts are hacks. What is important is what the law does. And roe did great at protecting privacy and this the right to an abortion just fine. You don’t actually have to hand it to the regressives because the reasoning for overturning roe was irrelevant, it was a political move. Giving cover for so called poor reasoning is the ultimate cuck move. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 Substantive due process is the to the law what modern monetary theory is to econ. No shock the same people love both Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 12 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Substantive due process is the to the law what modern monetary theory is to econ. No shock the same people love both mmt is silly but sdp is fine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 1 hour ago, sblfilms said: Substantive due process is the to the law what modern monetary theory is to econ. No shock the same people love both Guilty as charged! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.