SCOTUS Catch-all |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 923
  • Views: 40K
  • Politics 


Future headline:

SCOTUS holds that polluters can’t be sued in state court for global warming claims
 
Hell, they ought to be sued for damages from drilling, fracking and damages from lead in gasoline going back to when they first started. Those are the same sorts of "hidden" costs they claim are involved in alternate energy. It's so much not that they are completely wrong, it's their double standards.

Guess as long as it's cheaper to buy politicians than follow the laws, this is what we get. God knows, the petroleum industry here and worldwide have generational experience.
 


Business interests were down with giving Trump a free hand on just about everything … until it conflicted with business interests. And SCOTUS has long been there for business interests in conflicts with the government …
 
If SCOTUS has been as meretricious in some of its decisions as I believe them to have been, maybe they will take offense and retaliate.
 
superrific said:
Hmm. Reading that, you might get the impression that Gorsuch adheres to precedent. Must depends on who is responsible for the "rules shifting from day to day."
Click to expand...
I don't know about perfect precedent adherence, but Jackson and Kagan seemed pretty content to allow Biden to use emergency powers with student loans and rent abatement.

If I can quote Happy Gilmore, AKA gorsuch talking to Jackson and Kagan, "Where were you on that one, dipshit(s)?"
 
ZenMode said:
I don't know about perfect precedent adherence, but Jackson and Kagan seemed pretty content to allow Biden to use emergency powers with student loans and rent abatement.
Click to expand...
1. That's because the student loan statute did in fact give the power to the secretary, according to the plain meaning. The majority had to resort to its invented, more or less unexplained, major questions doctrine. Any reliance on that foolishness is wrong, so the liberals were clearly right.

2. On rent abatement, that was a shadow docket case. The objection, by Breyer (Jackson was not yet on the court), was that it was an improper use of the court's "emergency docket." Again, that was when the majority just stopped obeying its traditional standards for staying judgments, so again the liberals were right.
 
superrific said:
1. That's because the student loan statute did in fact give the power to the secretary, according to the plain meaning. The majority had to resort to its invented, more or less unexplained, major questions doctrine. Any reliance on that foolishness is wrong, so the liberals were clearly right.
Click to expand...
As long as you ignore the fact that there was no emergency, sure.

Same as Trump.
superrific said:
2. On rent abatement, that was a shadow docket case. The objection, by Breyer (Jackson was not yet on the court), was that it was an improper use of the court's "emergency docket." Again, that was when the majority just stopped obeying its traditional standards for staying judgments, so again the liberals were right.
Click to expand...
Not coincidentally, you are often....very often.... able to find legal justification for what liberals want to do.
 
mpaer said:
And airplanes?
Click to expand...
That went by the wayside much earlier than smoke-free restaurants, didn’t it?

I still remember going on a sales call at Phillip Morris in Manhattan in 2001. Pretty certain NYC office buildings were smoke-free by 2001. Not Phillip Morris.

Get off the elevator. Clouds of smoke hovering over ALL the cubicles.

Enter the conference room. The table has nice bowls on it. Filled with packs of cigarettes. Take as many as you want. Light up as many as you want.
 
superrific said:
Yeah, Covid was just a walk in the park.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying it wasn’t an emergency of some sort. I’m saying it wasn’t a student loan emergency.
superrific said:
Dude, not even the SCOTUS majority made this stupid argument.
Click to expand...
No, I wouldn’t expect SCOTUS to make an argument based on the subjective view of what is/isn’t an emergency. The ‘it wasn’t an emergency’ argument, unless I missed it, wasn’t made in regard to the tariffs/IEEPA, either.
 
finesse said:
Hell, they ought to be sued for damages from drilling, fracking and damages from lead in gasoline going back to when they first started. Those are the same sorts of "hidden" costs they claim are involved in alternate energy. It's so much not that they are completely wrong, it's their double standards.

Guess as long as it's cheaper to buy politicians than follow the laws, this is what we get. God knows, the petroleum industry here and worldwide have generational experience.
Click to expand...
“Then the coal company came with the world’s largest shovel, they tortured the timber and stripped all the land. Well they dug for their coal until the land was forsaken, and they wrote it all down as the progress of man.” - John Prine.
 
ZenMode said:
I’m not saying it wasn’t an emergency of some sort. I’m saying it wasn’t a student loan emergency.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if it's a student loan emergency. Here is the statute:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless enacted with specific reference to this section, the Secretary of Education may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency to provide the waivers or modifications."

No war or military operation creates a student loan emergency. The statute does not contemplate a student loan emergency. It merely contemplates an emergency, which is what COVID unquestionably was.

I still find it perplexing the way you shamelessly opine, over and over again, about topics you know nothing about.
 
superrific said:
It doesn't matter if it's a student loan emergency. Here is the statute:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless enacted with specific reference to this section, the Secretary of Education may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency to provide the waivers or modifications."

No war or military operation creates a student loan emergency. The statute does not contemplate a student loan emergency. It merely contemplates an emergency, which is what COVID unquestionably was.

I still find it perplexing the way you shamelessly opine, over and over again, about topics you know nothing about.
Click to expand...
Does he have an option?
 
superrific said:
It doesn't matter if it's a student loan emergency. Here is the statute:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless enacted with specific reference to this section, the Secretary of Education may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency to provide the waivers or modifications."

No war or military operation creates a student loan emergency. The statute does not contemplate a student loan emergency. It merely contemplates an emergency, which is what COVID unquestionably was.

I still find it perplexing the way you shamelessly opine, over and over again, about topics you know nothing about.
Click to expand...
DO know which wording, really just one word, related to IEEPA, was in question and ended up being the reason Trump was denied the ability to impose tariffs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top