Supreme Court might destroy voting rights.

[tstorm823]

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

I'm pretty confident you're not even aware which ruling we're currently arguing about. Admittedly, we got a little off topic, but Silvanus and I have been going back and forth about the EPA's cap and trade policy being struck down. I certainly do not blame you if you missed that.

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.

First off, you called the statement "true", if lacking context, on the same page you're now saying it's "demonstrably incorrect".
Second, it's absolutely a misunderstanding. You are taking a sentence intended to mean "states have discretion over the regulation of most pollutants" to mean "the EPA has no part at all in the regulation of most pollutants." Remember, this case is not about what pollutants were being regulated, but the methods used to do so.

And third, if I had made the mistake you think I did, it's still a complete waste of time to act like you are. If someone says "that's not what I meant and that's not what I'm saying now", you should argue with what they're saying now.

 

[Silvanus]

First off, you called the statement "true", if lacking context, on the same page you're now saying it's "demonstrably incorrect".

No, stop, that's not what I said.

What I said was true: that most regulations are "considered at the state level". That is true, though somewhat misleading, since although they're "considered" at the state level, the EPA retained the right to overrule what the states decided.

But that wasn't the entire statement. You said this is the case "Outside of a few specific pollutants" addressed by the Clean Air and Water Act. That is the demonstrably false part. The Acts explicitly covered all pollutants.

Second, it's absolutely a misunderstanding. You are taking a sentence intended to mean "states have discretion over the regulation of most pollutants" to mean "the EPA has no part at all in the regulation of most pollutants." Remember, this case is not about what pollutants were being regulated, but the methods used to do so.

Yet you made a statement about which pollutants were covered. You said it was "a few specific pollutants". You introduced that aspect into the conversation.

And third, if I had made the mistake you think I did, it's still a complete waste of time to act like you are. If someone says "that's not what I meant and that's not what I'm saying now", you should argue with what they're saying now.

If the person I'm speaking to is never willing to acknowledge any mistake they make, and simply wishes to shift onto another topic/ position as soon as it becomes clear, then they're not arguing in good faith.

I'm happy to move onto other topics, such as the position you've now shifted to, just as soon as you acknowledge that "all pollutants" and "a few specific pollutants" are not the same.

 

[Trunkage]

I'm pretty confident you're not even aware which ruling we're currently arguing about. Admittedly, we got a little off topic, but Silvanus and I have been going back and forth about the EPA's cap and trade policy being struck down. I certainly do not blame you if you missed that.

Yeah, I've spoken a lot to you about the EPA and you not understanding how a government works. Didn't want to bring that up again. I suppose you could say the logic of the EPA is to make sure that it cannot do anything. I was more talking about logic using law/constitution. I understand that destroying any sort of regulation is the only logic some people need

If just apply that ruling to any other department and you understand how stupid it is. It's like the Post Office being required to hold retirement packages for their potential employees for the next 75 years in their bank right now. It's not logical, no one is the world has to do that, let alone in the US. But that's not the aim. It's just trying to break the Post Office so the private sector can come in. These things surprises no one

 

[tstorm823]

Yet you made a statement about which pollutants were covered. You said it was "a few specific pollutants". You introduced that aspect into the conversation.

I did, to describe that only a few specific things were under the primary jurisdiction of the EPA. For most things, they have the role of advisory and oversight, not direct regulatory authority.

 

[Silvanus]

I did, to describe that only a few specific things were under the primary jurisdiction of the EPA.

But all pollutants (not "things", which is a weasel word used to back away from the specific statement) are under the jurisdiction of the EPA. Not a few specific ones.

And on all pollutants, they have authority overriding that of the states. The Act explicitly states this.

 

[tstorm823]

But all pollutants (not "things", which is a weasel word used to back away from the specific statement) are under the jurisdiction of the EPA. Not a few specific ones.

And on all pollutants, they have authority overriding that of the states. The Act explicitly states this.

There's not weasel words. There's no backing away. You're just wrong about what I said.

 

[Silvanus]

There's not weasel words. There's no backing away. You're just wrong about what I said.

What you said was "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".

I'm entirely right about what you said, because it's right there in black-and-white and I'm directly addressing it. It is a wrong statement. All pollutants are given guidelines in the Clean Air and Water Acts.

At this point, I genuinely don't know what you hope to gain by endlessly denying you said something you said, which is right there.

 

[tstorm823]

What you said was "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".

That is a wrong statement. All pollutants are given guidelines in the Clean Air and Water Acts.

That sentence does not say that any pollutants aren't given guidelines in the Clean Air and Water Acts. It says that few aren't allowed discretion by the states. That sentence doesn't say anything about which pollutants the EPA can involve itself in.

 

[Silvanus]

That sentence does not say that any pollutants aren't given guidelines in the Clean Air and Water Acts. It says that few aren't allowed discretion by the states. That sentence doesn't say anything about which pollutants the EPA can involve itself in.

And yet that, too, is false: it's already been quoted where the Clean Air Act explicitly gives the EPA overriding authority to decide regulation for all pollutants, and that the states are only allowed to be left to their own devices if the EPA lets them. The EPA is granted higher deciding power. For all pollutants.

 

[tstorm823]

And yet that, too, is false: it's already been quoted where the Clean Air Act explicitly gives the EPA overriding authority to decide regulation for all pollutants, and that the states are only allowed to be left to their own devices if the EPA lets them. The EPA is granted higher deciding power. For all pollutants.

That's like saying the president has no power to appoint Supreme Court judges because the Senate approves them.

 

[Silvanus]

That's like saying the president has no power to appoint Supreme Court judges because the Senate approves them.

If the Senate could not only reject the POTUS' nominee, but also appoint their own, regardless of whether the POTUS supported their pick, then yes it would be the same.

 

[tstorm823]

If the Senate could not only reject the POTUS' nominee, but also appoint their own, regardless of whether the POTUS supported their pick, then yes it would be the same.

Which is the power that the EPA lacks, which is why the Supreme Court booted this rule, because they don't have the authority to reject the states and the legislature and substitute their own rules.

 

[Silvanus]

Which is the power that the EPA lacks, which is why the Supreme Court booted this rule, because they don't have the authority to reject the states and the legislature and substitute their own rules.

The Clean Air Act quite clearly states the EPA can reject the states' own proposed regulations if they're deemed insufficient, and can implement its own. They were explicitly granted that power by the legislature.