SCOTUS Ruiling

[braves121]

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 

[mspart]

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

[braves121]

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 

[mspart]

I'll be watching out for that.

mspart

[braves121]

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

[ionel]

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.  

[VakAttack]

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

[braves121]

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 

[ionel]

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.   

[braves121]

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

[braves121]

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

[Scouts Honor]

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? 

[Scouts Honor]

i give you

 the EXPERTS at the EPA

[ionel]

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.

[Paul158]

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.

[mspart]

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

 

[Offthemat]

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. 

[Paul158]

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.

[mspart]

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

[Scouts Honor]

2 hours ago, Paul158 said:

Was that when they went to drain a mine and then polluted a perfectly pristine river.

yep

[Scouts Honor]

 

[uncle bernard]

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?

[Scouts Honor]

people ignored the phys ed teacher

lynyrd

[Offthemat]

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

[VakAttack]

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!