Supreme Court says several gun cases deserve a new look

[SMTA]

The leftist filth set up job OR us condemning it? Maybe the law being broken by leftist filth as they protest outside SCOTUS homes?

Point out the lie or piss off.

Double down on the partisan post bullshit garbage
Hilarious

 

[braindrain]

Another ideological decision.

Translation. They didn’t agree with you.

 

[mrjurrs]

So the EPA being stripped of the self appointed power to force coal fired power plants to shut down means we are all gonna die lol? This is amazing. We try to shut down a few coal plants while China builds new ones weekly lol. The power bills go up for our citizens with zero benefit for the sacrifice.

And Republicans drink the same water and breath the same air as you. We want our kids to have it as good or better than us. This sky is falling leftist approach isn't how to do it. First it was an ice age then when that fizzled it was global warming then when it got super cold again it morphed into climate change lol. Seems you leftist alarmists learned from your past two times crying wolf to developed a crisis thats covered or backed no matter which way the weather goes. Pretty convenient wouldn't you agree?

We were supposed to have all starved to death already lol. Bologna.

Self appointed? What do you suppose Congress created the Environmental Protection Agency to do?

 

[Daddyo]

Self appointed? What do you suppose Congress created the Environmental Protection Agency to do?

To shut down long existing businesses to push their radical green agenda?

To use their authority to punish political opponents?

To change land use designations also to punish political opponents?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Self appointed? What do you suppose Congress created the Environmental Protection Agency to do?

To enforce federal law.

 

[mrjurrs]

To shut down long existing businesses to push their radical green agenda?

To use their authority to punish political opponents?

To change land use designations also to punish political opponents?

To protect the environment from people like you. Got any kids? Do you care at all about their future? You want to see a bad economy? Start taking trillions out of the global economy each year to pay for losses resulting from increasingly powerful natural disasters.

Wait a minute, you don't think these events are related to god's anger at American abortion laws and everything will get better now do you?

You do know that a R President created the EPA don't you? Can you name him?

 

[Oozlefinch]

Many states with such laws, or those states contemplating such laws may well find themselves scrambling to make changes if they wish to avoid arguing before the current SCOTUS, which has shown itself to be largely in favor of not treating the Second Amendment as a lesser Constitutional right.

I absolutely love the fact that the states and cities that have the strictest gun control laws in the nation also have the highest murder and violent crime statistics.

And conversely, the states with the most "liberal" gun laws tend to have among the lowest rates.

Case in point, Stockton California is not exactly a "major city". Yet, in 2020 that city with a metro area population of 726k had over 57 murders.

In comparison, Boise with a metro population of over 749k had only 6 murders. And that is a state that actually has a law where anybody that is legally allowed to own a gun can carry it concealed with no license. Yet they have a higher population, but a murder rate only a fraction of a city in rural California.

You know, almost like criminals do not pay any attention to gun laws at all, and still have no problem getting them illegally.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Self appointed? What do you suppose Congress created the Environmental Protection Agency to do?

*laughs*

Oh wow, really? You think Congress created the EPA?

*laughs harder*

No, they had nothing to do with that. It was created by Executive Order by President Nixon, then ratified by the Senate.

Congress "created" nothing.

 

[mrjurrs]

*laughs*

Oh wow, really? You think Congress created the EPA?

*laughs harder*

No, they had nothing to do with that. It was created by Executive Order by President Nixon, then ratified by the Senate.

Congress "created" nothing.

Read...and learn.

"After conducting hearings during that summer, the House and Senate approved the proposal. The agency’s first Administrator, William Ruckelshaus, took the oath of office on December 4, 1970."

The Origins of EPA | US EPA

List of links to documents shedding light on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's birth and early years

www.epa.gov

 

[Oozlefinch]

"After conducting hearings during that summer, the House and Senate approved the proposal. The agency’s first Administrator, William Ruckelshaus, took the oath of office on December 4, 1970."

Notice, that they approved it. And it was already done, by the President. First by his council, then by his Executive Order. The House and Senate had an interest because the new EPA would be taking responsibility of a great many programs that were being controlled by the Departments of Interior and Agriculture (specifically dealing with waterways). The President can make a new department, but not simply remove powers from one and give them to another. That takes Congress.

You present a simple "Cliff's Notes" version, as if that proves your point?

Congress did not create the EPA. It already existed, and had since 9 July 1970 when President Nixon ordered it into being. What you are talking about here is the hearings that lasted into September that gave the final approval, closed some departments (like the Environmental Health Division of the PHS), and turning over their job to the new EPA.

And so, in the summer of 1970, Nixon issued the dryly titled Reorganization Plan 3, which provided for the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, reflecting the new understanding of ecology and the environment’s status as a system. In doing so, he told Congress that it was clear that the piecemeal development of environmental agencies would no longer serve such a large project.

Here’s Why the Environmental Protection Agency Was Created

By 1970, it was clear that the nation's approach to environmental problems wasn't working

time.com

Now as typical, the President can do a lot of things, but needs Congressional Approval for them also. That is why a treaty is not really a treaty until ratifies by the Senate. And he can appoint judges, but they need to be ratified or they are only judged for a set term. A President can create a new department, but needs Congress to allocate it a budget and give it the power under law to enforce things. This is what you are missing. You are confusing that part with the creation itself.

 

[mrjurrs]

Notice, that they approved it. And it was already done, by the President. First by his council, then by his Executive Order. The House and Senate had an interest because the new EPA would be taking responsibility of a great many programs that were being controlled by the Departments of Interior and Agriculture (specifically dealing with waterways). The President can make a new department, but not simply remove powers from one and give them to another. That takes Congress.

You present a simple "Cliff's Notes" version, as if that proves your point?

Congress did not create the EPA. It already existed, and had since 9 July 1970 when President Nixon ordered it into being. What you are talking about here is the hearings that lasted into September that gave the final approval, closed some departments (like the Environmental Health Division of the PHS), and turning over their job to the new EPA.

Here’s Why the Environmental Protection Agency Was Created

By 1970, it was clear that the nation's approach to environmental problems wasn't working

time.com

Now as typical, the President can do a lot of things, but needs Congressional Approval for them also. That is why a treaty is not really a treaty until ratifies by the Senate. And he can appoint judges, but they need to be ratified or they are only judged for a set term. A President can create a new department, but needs Congress to allocate it a budget and give it the power under law to enforce things. This is what you are missing. You are confusing that part with the creation itself.

Semantics. SCOTUS specifically took on Congress in their decision. Are you saying that they should have told the Executive Branch to take action. I agree that my use of 'created' was inartful.