lantern2814
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2018
- 15,057
- 12,310
- 2,290
And 6 don’t. That means you LOSE. Simple math that you don’t understand.3 justices on the court agree with him.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And 6 don’t. That means you LOSE. Simple math that you don’t understand.3 justices on the court agree with him.
3 justices on the court agree with him.
Yep. But 3 scotus judges do agree the court is wrong.
What did the court get wrong this time?Yep. But 3 scotus judges do agree the court is wrong.
The world of intelligent, rational people does not operate on the lizard brain level of this board.
Read the dissenting opinion.What did the court get wrong this time?
So you can't explain why they got it wrong? Because I can explain why they got it right; Congress never authorized the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions. So why was that wrong?Read the dissenting opinion.
That's a very poor grasp on logic you have, there.So you can't explain why they got it wrong?
I don't believe so. You are arguing they got it wrong and you can't even say why.That's a very poor grasp on logic you have, there.
Congress never authorized the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions. So why was that wrong?
The dissenting opinion is about 30 pages. General and more specific reasons are identified. It's quite detailed. One general reason given is that Congress intentionally gives regulatory agencis broad mandates so that at they can change their policies to meet changing circumstances.Congress never authorized the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions. So why was that wrong?
Broad mandates? So what broad mandate did Congress give the EPA that could be construed as authorizing the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions?The dissenting opinion is about 30 pages. General and more specific reasons are identified. It's quite detailed. One general reason given is that Congress intentionally gives regulatory agencis broad mandates so that at they can change their policies to meet changing circumstances.
It's a very detailed dissent. Quite a contrast from Roberts's verbose waste of paper, which essentially boils down to, "That doesn't mean they can do anything they want."
Correct.road mandates?
How many pages does it take to say Congress never authorized the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions?Quite a contrast from Roberts's verbose waste of paper, which essentially boils down to, "That doesn't mean they can do anything they want."
So which broad mandate that Congress gave to the EPA grants the EPA the authority to regulate CO2 emissions? What's the wording of this "broad mandate?"Correct.
Meaning, they do not dictate every policy and list their policies to only those policies.
It's pretty much every regulatory board in the government.
. The worry now is that Roberts's hamhanded, poorly delineated decision could be used to strike down just about any regulation.
A valid concern.
What other regulation was struck down?The worry now is that Roberts's hamhanded, poorly delineated decision could be used to strike down just about any regulation.
Correct.road mandates?
It could have taken one. Even less, as that wasn't really the courts decision. The decision was essentially that regulatory boards have no right to form policies not legislated to the letter by congress. Once again, decades of reaffirmed precedence are tossed by a corrupt court.How many pages does it take to say Congress never authorized the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions?
Unauthorized overreach is a liberal darling. We experienced a lot of it during the overreactive Covid hoax.How many pages does it take to say Congress never authorized the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions?
Your orange lard and master has the worst record of any president in history at the Supreme Court, due to his administration's constant overreach.Unauthorized overreach is a liberal darling.