Supreme Court might destroy voting rights.

[Silvanus]

You mean I directly responded to this?

You entirely ignored the substance of what I said. You just did it again.

You said the EPA was only empowered to address certain specific pollutants in a limited way. That was categorically false but you just moved on. I asked if you find financial conflicts of interest in the judiciary worrisome. You ignored the question.

 

[tstorm823]

You entirely ignored the substance of what I said. You just did it again.

You said the EPA was only empowered to address certain specific pollutants in a limited way. That was categorically false but you just moved on. I asked if you find financial conflicts of interest in the judiciary worrisome. You ignored the question.

I did not say they only address certain specific pollutants. They are absolutely limited in the methods they can use to address them, which is why this case ended the way it did. I don't find those conflicts of interest worrisome (if they exist), as the opinions of the court are all very well explained. I don't have to worry about baseless, bought decisions when the basis for those decisions is presented in full.

 

[Silvanus]

I did not say they only address certain specific pollutants.

Your exact words were, "Hell, outside of a few specific pollutants given guidelines in the Clean Air and Clean Water acts..."

In the Clean Air Act, it explicitly states it applies to all air pollutants.

They are absolutely limited in the methods they can use to address them, which is why this case ended the way it did.

The Clean Air and Water Acts include some restrictions on how the EPA can act. Outside of those limits, it granted them the right to determine its own best mechanism of enforcement.

Yet the limit SCOTUS invoked... wasn't in those Acts at all. Nor was it in the original delineation of the EPA's role. So when the Clean Air Act says the EPA is granted the authority to choose its own mechanism... well, your position seems to render that section completely moot. In your reading, something isn't allowed unless it's specifically stated to be allowed. Which means that a bill saying "you can choose"... actually conveys no powers whatsoever, because it didn't give specifics.

Obviously completely counter to the clear intention of the Act.

I don't find those conflicts of interest worrisome (if they exist) [...]

I might disagree, but thank you for at least answering, on the third prompt.

 

[Eacaraxe]

I don't wanna play that.

Yet you are, so again, show me where in the Constitution the Supreme Court nullifying Congressional acts is an enumerated power.

 

[tstorm823]

Your exact words were, "Hell, outside of a few specific pollutants given guidelines in the Clean Air and Clean Water acts..."

Don't be a jerk, the next word is "most".

Yet you are.

I am not.

 

[Silvanus]

Don't be a jerk, the next word is "most".

Are you genuinely joking at this point?

Supreme Court might destroy voting rights.

No, see, it's constitutional that if a corporation comes up with a new and fucked of way of destroying swaths of the environment, we have to wait for congress to come back from break, sort out all their bribes, rile their canvases up with blatant, obvious lies, and never vote on a way to stop it...

forums.escapistmagazine.com

"outside of a few specific pollutants given guidelines in the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, most pollution level issues are considered on the state level".

The word "most" doesn't refer to the same damn thing. "Most" refers to the amount of pollution issues considered at the state level-- which is true, though it disregards the fact that they're only allowed to do so if the EPA agrees their approach is good enough.

"Few specific" refers to the number of pollutants covered by the Clean Air and Water Acts. A different claim, and that statement is categorically false. All pollutants are explicitly covered.

 

[tstorm823]

Are you genuinely joking at this point?

Neither I nor the Supreme Court at any point said the EPA gets no say over carbon dioxide. The point of contention is the method of regulation, which in most cases, the EPA's role is basically just oversight. I did not say that they lack their advisory role for any pollutants. Misunderstandings are reasonable, but if you keep insisting on this point, you're doing it willfully.

 

[Silvanus]

Neither I nor the Supreme Court at any point said the EPA gets no say over carbon dioxide. The point of contention is the method of regulation, which in most cases, the EPA's role is basically just oversight. I did not say that they lack their advisory role for any pollutants. Misunderstandings are reasonable, but if you keep insisting on this point, you're doing it willfully.

You did, undeniably, state that the Clean Air and Water Acts cover "a few specific pollutants". That statement regarded pollutants. Not methods, pollutants.

It is not "misunderstanding" to state that that's categorically false. It covers all pollutants.

 

[Eacaraxe]

I am not.

You're invoking the expressio principle to argue the EPA has no power to regulate pollutants not positively stated by Congress, and the EPA has no discretion to levy penalties beyond that positively stated by Congress, despite Congress' intentionally broad delegation of powers to the agency through the Environmental Protection Act and subsequent legislation. In other words, Congress' language in those acts is not specific enough to be an effective mandate, and therefore the delegation is not a constitutional exercise of power.

That is strict constructionism.

So answer the challenge: show me where in the Constitution that judicial review is an enumerated power.

EDIT: I'm going to bring this farce to its end, actually. For those of you reading not in the know, tstorm's dodging the question because judicial review is not an enumerated power and they know it. Under the language of the Constitution, the judiciary has zero authority to overturn or nullify acts by the Executive or Legislative branch; John Marshall cut the doctrine out of whole cloth in Marbury v. Madison, the first and greatest-scale act of "judicial activism" to this day in US history.

Strict constructionism is a self-terminating legal philosophy in the United States, which is why conservative jurists flee from the term like rats from a sinking ship while playing lip service through dress-up language like "textualism" or "originalism". An intellectually honest and self-aware strict constructionist looking to remain consistent with their own legal philosophy can come to one and only one conclusion about American jurisprudence: courts have no power to engage in judicial review, and all cases pertaining to the constitutionality of Congressional or Presidential acts are political questions and therefore nonjusticiable.

 

[tstorm823]

You did, undeniably, state that the Clean Air and Water Acts cover "a few specific pollutants". That statement regarded pollutants. Not methods, pollutants.

It is not "misunderstanding" to state that that's categorically false. It covers all pollutants.

So you're just gonna keep arguing against your own misunderstandings? Seriously?

You're invoking the expressio principle to argue the EPA has no power to regulate pollutants not positively stated by Congress, and the EPA has no discretion to levy penalties beyond that positively stated by Congress, despite Congress' intentionally broad delegation of powers to the agency through the Environmental Protection Act and subsequent legislation. In other words, Congress' language in those acts is not specific enough to be an effective mandate, and therefore the delegation is not a constitutional exercise of power.

That is strict constructionism.

I am not doing any of that.

Do you think that the Supreme Court decision we are discussing is wrongfully decided?

 

[immortalfrieza]

EDIT: I'm going to bring this farce to its end, actually. For those of you reading not in the know, tstorm's dodging the question because judicial review is not an enumerated power and they know it. Under the language of the Constitution, the judiciary has zero authority to overturn or nullify acts by the Executive or Legislative branch; John Marshall cut the doctrine out of whole cloth in Marbury v. Madison, the first and greatest-scale act of "judicial activism" to this day in US history.

Tstorm goes into threads, decides a position, then will avoid acknowledging any and all facts and the evidence that goes with it which prove beyond all reasonable doubt that position is wrong while strawmanning, appealing to emotion, and otherwise using logical fallacy after logical fallacy to continue spouting that position long after any remotely reasonable person would have admitted they were wrong. Tstorm doesn't just disagree with people, they stubbornly stick to a position under any and all circumstances despite of and against all reason. Tstorm doesn't care that they are wrong and has no intention of actually engaging in a debate with anyone about anything.

 

[Trunkage]

Do you think that the Supreme Court decision we are discussing is wrongfully decided?

It doesn't follow the constitution, logic or common sense. The Supreme Court also has deleted any possibility of using logic, law, precedent and the constitution to make decisions.

It's your choice if you think this is wrong. I certainly believe that this was the point of these decisions, so that laws cannot be tied to the constitution and be made up on the spot

This has been the record of the decisions over the last few weeks. And years. Whether it's good or not is irrelevant, it's just what's going to happen

 

[Trunkage]

Tstorm goes into threads, decides a position, then will avoid acknowledging any and all facts and the evidence that goes with it which prove beyond all reasonable doubt that position is wrong while strawmanning, appealing to emotion, and otherwise using logical fallacy after logical fallacy to continue spouting that position long after any remotely reasonable person would have admitted they were wrong. Tstorm doesn't just disagree with people, they stubbornly stick to a position under any and all circumstances despite of and against all reason. Tstorm doesn't care that they are wrong and has no intention of actually engaging in a debate with anyone about anything.

So... you think Tstorm is actually SCOTUS or at least copying their tactics

 

[Avnger]

So... you think Tstorm is actually SCOTUS or at least copying their tactics

Other way around. Conservatives, in general, have been using the described argument pattern for years now. The conservative Supreme Court justices have only just reached a large enough majority that they can actually now use it as the basis for their "legal" decrees.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Other way around. Conservatives, in general, have been using the described argument pattern for years now. The conservative Supreme Court justices have only just reached a large enough majority that they can actually now use it as the basis for their "legal" decrees.

Nah, SCOTUS, Conservatives, Liberals, Fill in the XXXs here... there's people who pull the crap Tstorm does all the time. There are always people who have no intention of actually listening at all, much less actually changing their minds on anything whatsoever no matter how much objective truth put in front of them.

 

[tstorm823]

It doesn't follow the constitution, logic or common sense.

Can you explain what is lacking logic or common sense, or are you just going to state that without any reason?

 

[Trunkage]

Can you explain what is lacking logic or common sense, or are you just going to state that without any reason?

If you use the 5 steps they used to overturn Roe, it would immediately overturn this current decision

9th amendment clearly being broken. Then pretending that they are 'following the constitution'. 14th broken. If they actually enforce the law, the 1st and 11th are broken

if you compare cases over this session, some say precedents is important, some say it isnt. Sometimes in the same ruling.

Ruling that women are real people

Pretending that something like law allowing abortion or gun control HASNT been part of the US past. Also, ignoring states that didn't prohibit abortion and pretending they actually did. Pretending the anti-abortion laws is anything but new

Following Bobert's/Greene's idea that church should rule the state

Using Dredd Scott to back up any claim

Kavanagh pretending that this wont effect interstate travel to get abortions. He lied to get the job, so the only recourse is to assume he is lying here too

Anything that Thomas says

 

[Trunkage]

Other way around. Conservatives, in general, have been using the described argument pattern for years now. The conservative Supreme Court justices have only just reached a large enough majority that they can actually now use it as the basis for their "legal" decrees.

it certainly is jarring for conservatives to bang on about tradition and then you realise that when they say tradition, they just mean stuff made up in their head that was never reality

 

[Silvanus]

So you're just gonna keep arguing against your own misunderstandings? Seriously?

It's not a fucking "misunderstanding", and endlessly repeating that won't turn it around.

You said something demonstrably incorrect, and are point-blank refusing to acknowledge it.

 

[Avnger]

Nah, SCOTUS, Conservatives, Liberals, Fill in the XXXs here... there's people who pull the crap Tstorm does all the time. There are always people who have no intention of actually listening at all, much less actually changing their minds on anything whatsoever no matter how much objective truth put in front of them.

Yes but also no.

While some people across all political persuasions do act like this, US conservatives have taken it mainstream in a manner not seen elsewhere.