• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court limits EPA in curbing power plant emissions

Putting on blinders so you won't see the rest of the world is a recipe for disaster. Protectionism made the Great Depression deeper and longer.

The American protectionism bill that made the Great Depression worse​


PROTECTIONISM. ANYONE ? ANYONE ? BUELLER?

One of the most memorable movie scenes from 1986’s “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” was comedian Ben Stein as the droning high school teacher, trying to teach his bored students the lesson of “Smoot-Hawley,” the tariff bill of 1930. “Anyone? Anyone?” is the line Stein repeats over and over, trying to elicit answers about a disastrous piece of American legislation.


But the real story of that terrible tariff bill is far from boring. It’s actually a fascinating tale of protectionism, politics, piety and patriotism. It’s also a legislative tragedy, a tale of a bill going off the rails, careening off a cliff and helping to sink the world economy.

https://www.marketplace.org/2017/08/24/what-was-one-worst-pieces-us-legislation/
A publication for the business investor class says American industry is bad and should be put out of business so the owners can collect more money? Shocked I tell you!
 
The government does have the tools. It’s called congress. The people who are supposed to be writing laws.
Just because you can’t get enough support for your agenda doesn’t mean we don’t have the tools.

LMAO ... uh, in case you haven't noticed, the f***in' senate is more DYSFUNCTIONAL than the Congolese government...
 
It is the job of the people to fix the broken Supreme Court. They are a menace to all we hold dear. We will lose all our freedoms at their hands if we let them.

It continues to be unexplained how a SCOTUS decision that says Congress-- the duly elected and accountable Congress and not the unelected and unaccountable EPA -- has to decide, is a menace to all we hold dear.
 
Why though?

Just seems like an absurd ruling from the supreme court. Petty almost.
Not at all. It's the curbing of bureaucracies creating defacto laws at a greater rate than the actual legislature itself undermines the entire concept of separation of powers and needs to be reigned in.
 
Is this the level of argumentation you’re capable of?
1000's of gigatons of Fossil carbon being dug up and released into the air is causing massive changes in our climate. It is heating up the air and oceans at a rate never seen in the history of mankind. Only fools would not be very worried about the future so do not be one.

co2-graph-061219.jpg
 
The SC is upending the laws made by Congress. They are making up falsehoods to justify a political agenda. The EPA was authorized by Congress to make rules to protect us from dangerous pollution. The court now says they know better without a shred of evidence. There is only one way to fix this and that is to neuter their partisan votes with more Justices.
The epa does not have unlimited powers and your claim that they are making up falsehoods is nothing more then your opinion. And that is the opinion of an extremely partisan individual.

Furthermore more comments were more in general rather then this specific topic. Someone claiming that because they can’t get the laws they want passed that they should just go ahead and act anyway is not a fan of democracy.
 
1000's of gigatons of Fossil carbon being dug up and released into the air is causing massive changes in our climate. It is heating up the air and oceans at a rate never seen in the history of mankind.
In recorded history where we have measuring equipment to tell
Only fools would not be very worried about the future so do not be one.

co2-graph-061219.jpg
No, only fools believe this constitutes an immediate crisis which coincidentally can only be solved with socialism.

In fact the alarmists have been claiming for almost a century now that catastrophic change in climate is only a few decades away. And will be irreversible in 10 years. We can’t reverse anything and catastrophe is not 15 years away.

What it really seems like is the more the predictions fail to come true and more animated and alarmist people like you become. Take a break, it’s good for mental health to not be a doomer all the time
 
I find the court's ruling disingenuous. The whole reason why Obama used the EPA backdoor is because Republicans won't work with Democrats at all on the environment. They will just filibuster everything. Our congress is effectively broken. SCOTUS knows this, which is why they can undo progress and pass the buck. They know full well that congress doesn't function anymore. That seems to be their MO now. Pass it to congress. In RvW, pass it to the states... so in one state abortion can be murder but in another state it can't, which makes no sense at all if you really think about it.

The purpose of federal rulings is to harmonize policy that would otherwise be incongruent on the individual state level. Things like the environment and murder are federal issues because they affect the whole country. What the court is doing is not in line with jurisprudence.

For me, the EPA ruling was the litmus test to determine if SCOTUS is being activist, and this confirms that they are. They are legislating from the bench.
 
In recorded history where we have measuring equipment to tell

No, only fools believe this constitutes an immediate crisis which coincidentally can only be solved with socialism
Look at that chart we know far more about CO2 levels than recorded history and they are double what they have been for 800,000 years. Science has determined that several mass extinctions in the distant past were caused by disturbances in the carbon cycle that caused warming and the death of the oceans. We will not survive this.
 
I find the court's ruling disingenuous. The whole reason why Obama used the EPA backdoor is because Republicans won't work with Democrats at all on the environment.
So you’re admitting you hate representative democracy
They will just filibuster everything. Our congress is effectively broken. SCOTUS knows this, which is why they can undo progress and pass the buck. They know full well that congress doesn't function anymore.
Well it doesn’t function anymore because the left rejects the legitimacy of the system
That seems to be their MO now. Pass it to congress. In RvW, pass it to the states... so in one state abortion can be murder but in another state it can't, which makes no sense at all if you really think about it.
It makes perfect sense
The purpose of federal rulings is to harmonize policy that would otherwise be incongruent on the individual state level.
No, the purpose of court rulings is to resolve disputes between parties, not to create federal policy
For me, the EPA ruling was the litmus test to determine if SCOTUS is being activist, and this confirms that they are.
No, it shows they’re being closer to the constitution then before. Your argument seems to be that if congress doesn’t approve all the policies a president wants that the president can just claim the “congress is being mean” exception and enact the policy anyway
 
Look at that chart we know far more about CO2 levels than recorded history and they are double what they have been for 800,000 years.
Ok, so what?
Science has determined
No, science has “determined” no such thing. What you mean is, “some scientists who come with their own political biases and attitudes believe that”
that several mass extinctions
Defined as?
in the distant past were caused by disturbances in the carbon cycle that caused warming and the death of the oceans. We will not survive this.
We will survive it just fine. Animal species go extinct because they have no ability to control the environment around them, they can’t build shelter, build dams, sea walls, air conditioning, Central heat, etc
 
I find the court's ruling disingenuous. The whole reason why Obama used the EPA backdoor is because Republicans won't work with Democrats at all on the environment. They will just filibuster everything. Our congress is effectively broken. SCOTUS knows this, which is why they can undo progress and pass the buck. They know full well that congress doesn't function anymore. That seems to be their MO now. Pass it to congress. In RvW, pass it to the states... so in one state abortion can be murder but in another state it can't, which makes no sense at all if you really think about it.

The purpose of federal rulings is to harmonize policy that would otherwise be incongruent on the individual state level. Things like the environment and murder are federal issues because they affect the whole country. What the court is doing is not in line with jurisprudence.

For me, the EPA ruling was the litmus test to determine if SCOTUS is being activist, and this confirms that they are. They are legislating from the bench.
Yes they are no longer a court but just an arm of the GOP agenda and nothing is safe from their meddling. You know they are not independent justices by the ease we can predict their rulings.
 
So you’re admitting you hate representative democracy

Well it doesn’t function anymore because the left rejects the legitimacy of the system

It makes perfect sense

No, the purpose of court rulings is to resolve disputes between parties, not to create federal policy

No, it shows they’re being closer to the constitution then before. Your argument seems to be that if congress doesn’t approve all the policies a president wants that the president can just claim the “congress is being mean” exception and enact the policy anyway

Yet nobody will strip the President of the expanded signing authority that was granted after 9/11. If rolling back Presidential powers is what SCOTUS is doing, then they have a funny way of showing it.

I understand that the court technically has a right to do this but it comes across as very underhanded, especially given that most Americans want CO2 regulated, especially the states experiencing massive droughts.
 
Yes they are no longer a court but just an arm of the GOP agenda and nothing is safe from their meddling. You know they are not independent justices by the ease we can predict their rulings.

I have been following their activities closely since the Trump nominations and honestly I think you are right. There is no moderating influence anymore. They are put there to legislate from the bench, irregardless of the will of the American people.
 
I find the court's ruling disingenuous. The whole reason why Obama used the EPA backdoor is because Republicans won't work with Democrats at all on the environment. They will just filibuster everything. Our congress is effectively broken. SCOTUS knows this, which is why they can undo progress and pass the buck. They know full well that congress doesn't function anymore. That seems to be their MO now. Pass it to congress. In RvW, pass it to the states... so in one state abortion can be murder but in another state it can't, which makes no sense at all if you really think about it.

The purpose of federal rulings is to harmonize policy that would otherwise be incongruent on the individual state level. Things like the environment and murder are federal issues because they affect the whole country. What the court is doing is not in line with jurisprudence.

For me, the EPA ruling was the litmus test to determine if SCOTUS is being activist, and this confirms that they are. They are legislating from the bench.

Exactly ... six f***in' gutless COWARDS in black robes

In other words, typical right-wing LOSERS...
 
So you’re admitting you hate representative democracy

Well it doesn’t function anymore because the left rejects the legitimacy of the system

It makes perfect sense

No, the purpose of court rulings is to resolve disputes between parties, not to create federal policy

No, it shows they’re being closer to the constitution then before. Your argument seems to be that if congress doesn’t approve all the policies a president wants that the president can just claim the “congress is being mean” exception and enact the policy anyway
The court is using illegitimate arguments in their rulings which make the court itself illegitimate. They cannot make rulings on which gases are harmful that is not their job.
 
Yet nobody will strip the President of the expanded signing authority that was granted after 9/11. If rolling back Presidential powers is what SCOTUS is doing, then they have a funny way of showing it.
Ok so your argument is that because a different thing happened you want the EPA being a supreme junta and the embodiment of political authority?
I understand that the court technically has a right to do this but it comes across as very underhanded, especially given that most Americans want CO2 regulated, especially the states experiencing massive droughts.
Most Americans don’t care about this.

Any drought that exists today cannot be solved by reducing Co2 over decades. And likely cannot be solved at all. Mega droughts in the American southwest are the historical norm.
 
The court is using illegitimate arguments in their rulings which make the court itself illegitimate. They cannot make rulings on which gases are harmful that is not their job.
Blah. Blah blah
 
I have been following their activities closely since the Trump nominations and honestly I think you are right. There is no moderating influence anymore. They are put there to legislate from the bench, irregardless of the will of the American people.
They were handpicked and nurtured by the Federalist Society for this very purpose and lied to Congress to get confirmed. All our rights are in jeopardy.
 
I have been following their activities closely since the Trump nominations and honestly I think you are right. There is no moderating influence anymore. They are put there to legislate from the bench, irregardless of the will of the American people.
“irregardless” isn’t a word.

And in any event, none of the rulings you’re seething about constitute legislation. They represent limiting left causes to existing legislation until more can be passed, and the left is mad because they cannot pass such legislation. Because they normally can’t win enough elections to
 
Ok so your argument is that because a different thing happened you want the EPA being a supreme junta and the embodiment of political authority?

You keep putting words in my mouth. How about you as some genuine questions like an adult?

My issue is with how this court is ignoring jurisprudence. They are clearly legislating from the bench. My personal opinion on the specific issues is irrelevant to that one.

Most Americans don’t care about this.

A link was posted earlier in this thread demonstrating otherwise. 75% of Americans want CO2 emissions regulated.

Any drought that exists today cannot be solved by reducing Co2 over decades. And likely cannot be solved at all. Mega droughts in the American southwest are the historical norm.

There is a wealth of scientific evidence suggesting otherwise, but I know that America is a hot bed for willful ignorance on this issue, so I won't even bother arguing with you.
 
“irregardless” isn’t a word.

Yes it is. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

Maybe you should now stop and consider what else you're wrong about.

And in any event, none of the rulings you’re seething about constitute legislation. They represent limiting left causes to existing legislation until more can be passed, and the left is mad because they cannot pass such legislation. Because they normally can’t win enough elections to

I'm not seething. You can't seem to stop the personal attacks, so we're done here. Obvious troll is obvious.
 
Exactly ... six f***in' gutless COWARDS in black robes

In other words, typical right-wing LOSERS...

I don't necessarily have a problem with a right wing court, but their biases cannot really be justified according to jurisprudence. They are making up whole new precedents for the huge rulings they've recently made. Like I said, the EPA case was the litmus test for me. They failed.
 
Ok so your argument is that because a different thing happened you want the EPA being a supreme junta and the embodiment of political authority?

Most Americans don’t care about this.

Any drought that exists today cannot be solved by reducing Co2 over decades. And likely cannot be solved at all. Mega droughts in the American southwest are the historical norm.
You just don't get it. We are in a hole and you want to just keep digging. It is insanity.

The Clean Air Act, which EPA used in its rulemaking, was passed in 1970, when global warming was little known.

“It’s almost as if the court needs Congress to make a new law every time a new problem emerges, which is ridiculous and dangerous,” said Georgetown University Law Professor Lisa Heinzerling, a former EPA official. She authored winning arguments in a 2007 case in which a previous high court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and can in fact be regulated by the EPA.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...epa-ruling-means-for-the-climate-change-fight
 
You keep putting words in my mouth. How about you as some genuine questions like an adult?
This is your argument. You wrote that because congress rejected a law the EPA has the right to just impose it.
My issue is with how this court is ignoring jurisprudence. They are clearly legislating from the bench. My personal opinion on the specific issues is irrelevant to that one.
No, they not.
A link was posted earlier in this thread demonstrating otherwise. 75% of Americans want CO2 emissions regulated.
Irrelevant. First off most polling is junk because there’s social bias in how the question is asked. “Do you want carbon regulated” is not a question most Americans think about on a regular basis and most people don’t actually care. Secondly, if that were true then Democrats should make it an election issue. Except that they have and the results haven’t worked for them.
There is a wealth of scientific evidence suggesting otherwise,
Irrelevant, we’re not governed by studies
but I know that America is a hot bed for willful ignorance on this issue, so I won't even bother arguing with you.
Of course you won’t, because you are clearly ideologically committed to a Machiavellian approach on your pet issues
 
Back
Top Bottom