Do you fear Trump replacing RBG with a Judge off his list?

[Tom Horn]

Reduced regulatory protections, for one.

I expect that alone to result in deaths, and because we weren't regulating the waste disposal of industry enough even during Obama presidency.

why should I care if Marylanders wish to swim in pig piss if that’s what they want to do?

 

[Renae]

Reduced regulatory protections, for one.

I expect that alone to result in deaths, and because we weren't regulating the waste disposal of industry enough even during Obama presidency.

Ahh, you're one of those.

 

[The Mark]

why should I care if Marylanders wish to swim in pig piss if that’s what they want to do?

Because the environment is not limited by state borders.

 

[The Mark]

Ahh, you're one of those.

Depends what you mean.

Possibly.

 

[Tom Horn]

Because the environment is not limited by state borders.

I saw the abuse of power atLove Canal. Time to fold up the EPA and toss it in the sewer.

 

[joko104]

It as likely that Stephen Gerald Breyer will be lost to the SCOTUS as Ginsberg to due his sex on average living shorter life spans. If President Trump were to win re-election, there is a change he would be appointing 2 more SCOTUS justices.

 

[smallvoice]

It's easy to prove a point with you. What was the point I proved?

I agree w you- the "originalism" claim is such a fraud.

In fact, R.B.G. is on record for saying that the S.C. should not get ahead of established law. She is really quite reasonable and conservative based on the original meaning of the word, "conservative". In fact, she was not supported by many left leaning women during her nomination. We need more justices like her.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...-ginsburgs-unlikely-path-to-the-supreme-court

"If Struck was Ginsburg’s next, carefully placed stepping stone across a wide river, Roe was a rickety wooden plank thrown down across the water and—Ginsburg thought—likely to rot. In a lecture she delivered in 1984, she noted the political significance of the fact that the Court had treated sex discrimination as a matter of equal protection but reproductive autonomy as a matter of privacy. When the Court overturned laws on the basis of sex discrimination, no great controversy ensued, she observed, but Roe v. Wade remained “a storm center.” She went on, “Roe v. Wade sparked public opposition and academic criticism, in part, I believe, because the Court ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete justification for its action.”

 

[The Mark]

I saw the abuse of power atLove Canal. Time to fold up the EPA and toss it in the sewer.

I assume you mean this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal

To me, that sounds like a lack of regulations allowed toxic waste to be dumped.
Later, a lack of regulation allowed people to live near the still-toxic area.

In my mind, part of the reason for government is to protect people from harm to themselves or their property, or at least harm they cannot reasonably avoid or prevent on their own.

Thus, if an entity's actions would result in harm to the people or environment protected by a government body (local government, at most basic level), the duty of that government body is to prevent that entity from acting in that way.

Of course, there is a degree of balance between harm and benefit, so that isn't an inflexible rule.


In short, from what I've read in that wikipedia article, either:
The dumping of those waste products should not have been allowed without more restrictions on how the land would be treated after it's use in such a way.
And/or at the very least building residences should never have been allowed without measures to ensure a healthy environment, if that would even be possible.


Not sure what you're talking about when you say abuse of power though...

 

[Tom Horn]

I assume you mean this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal

To me, that sounds like a lack of regulations allowed toxic waste to be dumped.
Later, a lack of regulation allowed people to live near the still-toxic area.

In my mind, part of the reason for government is to protect people from harm to themselves or their property, or at least harm they cannot reasonably avoid or prevent on their own.

Thus, if an entity's actions would result in harm to the people or environment protected by a government body (local government, at most basic level), the duty of that government body is to prevent that entity from acting in that way.

Of course, there is a degree of balance between harm and benefit, so that isn't an inflexible rule.


In short, from what I've read in that wikipedia article, either:
The dumping of those waste products should not have been allowed without more restrictions on how the land would be treated after it's use in such a way.
And/or at the very least building residences should never have been allowed without measures to ensure a healthy environment, if that would even be possible.


Not sure what you're talking about when you say abuse of power though...

the state of NewYork knew all about it. They knew it needed cleaned up. That’s why they bought it for just one dollar.

 

[Tom Horn]

Show me where the state of New York took any liability for people’s ill health when they lived there.

 

[The Mark]

the state of NewYork knew all about it. They knew it needed cleaned up. That’s why they bought it for just one dollar.

Then they failed in their duty and should be punished, if they have not been.

 

[Tom Horn]

Then they failed in their duty and should be punished, if they have not been.

When someone is given ultimate power, there can never be any fair and impartiality ever again.

 

[The Mark]

When someone is given ultimate power, there can never be any fair and impartiality ever again.

That's why you can never allow anyone to have ultimate power.

 

[TurtleDude]

That's why you can never allow anyone to have ultimate power.

which is why I want Justices who aren't fans of more and more and more government

 

[DiAnna]

That old fossil needs to go as she has already shown her extreme bias toward the left.

My wife completely hates her and wishes she would just die.
I tell her to quit talking like that every time she does.
Not cricket.

That is simply a horrible post, and a horrible thing to say.

 

[Your Star]

It scares the living **** out of me. We need to win in 2020 and 2024 in order to hopefully shift the balance on the court.

 

[TurtleDude]

It scares the living **** out of me. We need to win in 2020 and 2024 in order to hopefully shift the balance on the court.

If Trump is able to replace either of the two clinton picks-no such chance. if he replaces one of the oldest GOP judges-the GOP still has the court. I am betting Breyer and RBG are the next two to go

 

[Your Star]

If Trump is able to replace either of the two clinton picks-no such chance. if he replaces one of the oldest GOP judges-the GOP still has the court. I am betting Breyer and RBG are the next two to go

Ideally, they stay around until after 2020. A democrat is in office, then they go.

 

[TurtleDude]

Ideally, they stay around until after 2020. A democrat is in office, then they go.

I am sure that is their plan and RBG is one tough old bird but a couple people i know who have argued before the Court in the last year are saying she's really declining fast. Scalia-her best friend in life-dying, really was a big blow

 

[Nap]

I am sure that is their plan and RBG is one tough old bird but a couple people i know who have argued before the Court in the last year are saying she's really declining fast. Scalia-her best friend in life-dying, really was a big blow

If Republicans gain seats in the Senate, it would probably be beneficial if Thomas were to retire to get a younger replacement.

 

[Nap]

Fdr court did ignore over a century of precedence, I do not want that repeated, Give some balance but make sure the left wing appointee holds the constitution above all else. If we get a stacked court it will be fdr all over again just with a different agenda.

This would be rather hard to find. For someone to be Left wing, by definition they would be against upholding the constitution above all else. For someone that is Left wing the constitution is nothing but a historical document that is outdated and we would be better off scrapping it and rewriting it for the modern age.

If you are wanting someone that is going to uphold the constitution above all else that person is typically going to be on the Right as that is typically where you find those that wish to preserve the status quo.

 

[PleasantValley]

That is simply a horrible post, and a horrible thing to say.

If you read the post correctly, you would see where I told my wife it was a terrible thing to say and it was not proper to do so.
Your LEAN blinded you to what was actually written.

I still stand by Ginsberg being a fossil though, and needs to step down due to her being 3,000 years old.
Some rocks aren't as old as her.

 

[Logician Man]

It scares the living **** out of me. We need to win in 2020 and 2024 in order to hopefully shift the balance on the court.

Women should be scared. Clearly Trump is a blatant misogynist,and he will continue to stack SCOTUS with more misogynists if given the chance.This will severely and adversely affect women's rights for decades to come. But i do see hope. My daughters and grand daughters are voicing their opinions about misogynistic old white males dictating what rights women have,and will have for generations to come,and it doesn't bode well at all for misogynistic old white males,rightfully so.

 

[RileyCoyote]

No, I can't wait until he gets to appoint another judge!

 

[RileyCoyote]

I liken her to a dinosaur.