braves121 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 1 hour ago, Scouts Honor said: is that anything like taking power from his unelected bureaucrats... as in chevron? they gave it back to congress I’m sure taking away regulating powers away from industry experts and giving them to people who believe things such as Jewish space lasers and people who were elected without even knowing the 3 branches of government isn’t going to cause massive problems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 5 minutes ago, braves121 said: I’m sure taking away regulating powers away from industry experts and giving them to people who believe things such as Jewish space lasers and people who were elected without even knowing the 3 branches of government isn’t going to cause massive problems Braves, So what you are saying is that Congress doesn't know what they are doing so the administrative state, who supposedly does know what they are doing, has to create law that Congress never authorized. That is exactly what SCOTUS objected to. mspart 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
braves121 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 1 minute ago, mspart said: Braves, So what you are saying is that Congress doesn't know what they are doing so the administrative state, who supposedly does know what they are doing, has to create law that Congress never authorized. That is exactly what SCOTUS objected to. mspart I’m saying it’s incredibly stupid and dangerous for the SC to overturn chevron because congress is bought and paid for by corporations. Congress doesn’t know what they are doing, look at the debt. Now instead of educated and experienced people leading these agencies wnd interpreting the laws congress will and they are all paid for. Like i said look out for the asbestos in water and no more work safety regulations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 I'll be watching out for that. mspart 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
braves121 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 (edited) 8 minutes ago, mspart said: I'll be watching out for that. mspart Serious question you think that taking away regulating agencies such as fda and osha is a good thing for we the people? Because you know what happened before that right? Upton Sinclair does Edited July 1 by braves121 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionel Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 21 minutes ago, braves121 said: Did you read the ruling? The SC used the words “absolute immunity” lmao “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official,” Roberts wrote. “The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.” Doesn't sound a absolute. If you are referencing other text then please quote so we can see the qualifying language associated with the immunity. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VakAttack Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 (edited) 11 minutes ago, ionel said: “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official,” Roberts wrote. “The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.” Doesn't sound a absolute. If you are referencing other text then please quote so we can see the qualifying language associated with the immunity. Thankfully the Wise and All-Knowing Chief Justice saw fit to refuse to outline what is unofficial and, in fact, helpfully outline that being able to prove what is unofficial is nigh impossible, so as to make sure that the Omnipotent Leader doesn't have to worry should they break any of our piddling laws that are not meant for higher beings. Truly a wondrous day where the unerring minds of these Originalist Scholars were able to decipher an right of absolute immunity that was so original you can't even find it in the Constitution! Edited July 1 by VakAttack 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
braves121 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 12 minutes ago, ionel said: “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official,” Roberts wrote. “The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.” Doesn't sound an absolute. If you are referencing other text then please quote so we can see the qualifying language associated with the immunity. “We thus conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” Page 17 of the ruling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionel Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 3 minutes ago, braves121 said: “We thus conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” Page 17 of the ruling Exactly ... he does not have "absolute immunity" only within his constitutional authority. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
braves121 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 1 minute ago, ionel said: Exactly ... he does not have "absolute immunity" only within his constitutional authority. moving the goal posts. First he does not have “absolute” then he doesn’t have “absolute immunity” i quote the ruling and now it’s he only has absolute immunity within his authority lol what a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
braves121 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 2 minutes ago, ionel said: Exactly ... he does not have "absolute immunity" only within his constitutional authority. It’s ironic that this case outlines “constitutional authority” when the ruling and argument the SC is making is nowhere to be found in the constitution our country is cooked lmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scouts Honor Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 1 hour ago, braves121 said: I’m sure taking away regulating powers away from industry experts and giving them to people who believe things such as Jewish space lasers and people who were elected without even knowing the 3 branches of government isn’t going to cause massive problems but it will take power from the executive branch, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scouts Honor Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 i give you the EXPERTS at the EPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionel Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 38 minutes ago, braves121 said: moving the goal posts. First he does not have “absolute” then he doesn’t have “absolute immunity” i quote the ruling and now it’s he only has absolute immunity within his authority lol what a joke Webster can help you out on "absolute" or just keep repeating the lie and eventually all the Dems will believe you. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul158 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 16 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said: i give you the EXPERTS at the EPA Was that when they went to drain a mine and then polluted a perfectly pristine river. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 1 hour ago, braves121 said: Serious question you think that taking away regulating agencies such as fda and osha is a good thing for we the people? Because you know what happened before that right? Upton Sinclair does The agencies aren't going away. But the regulations that are challenged and shown not to comport with actual law will/may be going away. Big difference. mspart 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Overruling Chevron doesn’t eliminate the agencies, it doesn’t give Congress the power to decide regulatory cases, it eliminates the deference given to agencies to write, prosecute, and judge their own laws. Congress will still write the laws, the agencies will investigate, and if controversy arises, the difference is that it can be adjudicated by jury trial. That’s the difference, instead of bureaucrats, you get a jury. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul158 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 24 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said: i give you the EXPERTS at the EPA EPA clean up crew accidently releases 3 million gallons of toxic water containing heavy metals and contaminants from an old mine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 But those are not the very uber smart bureaucrats that braves is talking about. Those were just some lackeys that made an obvious mistake. That water looks horrible. Good thing it wasn't those cracker jack bureaucrats. mspart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scouts Honor Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 2 hours ago, Paul158 said: Was that when they went to drain a mine and then polluted a perfectly pristine river. yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scouts Honor Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 5 hours ago, mspart said: Watergate does not bother me. Does your conscience bother you? Tell me true. mspart Everybody’s conscience bothers them. What are you referring to specifically in this latest non-sequitur? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scouts Honor Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 people ignored the phys ed teacher lynyrd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 5 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: Everybody’s conscience bothers them. What are you referring to specifically in this latest non-sequitur? Well if you don't know what I mean Won't you stand up and scream? 'cause there's things goin' on that you don't know 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VakAttack Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 Another member of our Unquestioned Ruling Class there to fairly and balanced-ly lay out for us mere simpletons that no Ruler or Vice Ruler would ever engage in these kinds of criminal shenanigans. They're too pure of heart and spirit! Imagine if the leader of this man's coterie had been convicted of, say, 34 felonies, or if this man's party had spent the last two years having said coterie scream that the opposing Leader was in charge of some sort of...Crime Family or something. Thanks to the Men on the Wall like Mike Johnson, there only to shepherd us weak-minded lessers thru this life. Hail the Leaders! Hail the King! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Slack Wasatch via Snow College, Utah Class of 2024 Committed to Utah Valley Projected Weight: 197
Kasey Curtis North Sanpete via Snow College, Utah Class of 2024 Committed to Utah Valley Projected Weight: 133
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now