Kagan’s dissent in EPA case
 

In her dissenting opinion on the EPA case, Justice Kagan lamented that kids alive today might see the eastern seaboard swallowed by the atlantic ocean.

In other words, she stated very explicitly, that she made her ruling based at least in part, on which decision would give her the outcome she likes more.

She set the constitution aside, and put her thumb in the scale for the side she was rooting for

Judges should never, ever do that. If she wants to advocate for policies she’s passionate about, she belongs in the legislative branch, not in the supreme court

Middle school civics. There is no “eastern seaboard swallowed by the atlantic ocean” clause in the constitution.

This is why the statue of lady justice at every courthouse is wearing a blindfold. Kagan freely admitted she book the blindfold off,,because her concern for the environment was more important than the law.

OK, Jan
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

great response.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The first line of Kagan’s dissent in the EPA case is the headline: "Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to 'the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.’"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and the line about floods, reveals that she had a personal bias in the case.

To a judge, the societal ramifications of the court decision DOES NOT MATTER. This is why in criminal cases when the cops make a mistake, judges must set free people they know are guilty, regardless of how distasteful it is, because the law requires them to do so. The law is all that matters, that’s the point of the blindfold on all the statues.

Liberal judges have been allowing personal opinions to influence their decisions for 50 years. Trump put a stop to that, and it’s the best thing he did as president. It’s way better for all of us.

CNN reported last night that the policy is now dead because congress won’t legislate it. Well, that’s their job. If Congress won’t legislate it, that means they can’t ram it down our throats using unelected bureaucrats.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don’t look at this in terms of EPA or climate change. The issue here is whether the Congress can delegate rulemaking authority to ANY executive agency, and the court is saying it cannot. This sets the stage for the total dismantling of the government.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nothing in the Constitution requires Congress to pay for Supreme Court clerks. Or secretaries. Or air conditioning.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

completely wrong. the court is saying the EPA can’t enact sweeping national policy without co guess authorizing it.

you got it as wrong as is humanly possible.

i’m on board with national policies that live us slowly in a green direction. but these things have to be decided by people
who are answerable to us. that’s called democracy, which the national now clearly sees, that liberals hate. you hate the idea of democracy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually unlike you, we want a functioning government.

Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution says: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” One way to paraphrase that is: Federal law is made by Congress.

In the modern US, this is not quite true. Some federal law is made by Congress, but quite a lot of federal law is made by government departments and administrative agencies. In many cases, Congress passes fairly general laws, and those laws instruct the relevant agency to write rules implementing the laws, and then the agencies write more specific rules. Sometimes these rules just fill in details in a comprehensive statutory scheme. Other times the agencies have pretty broad mandates to write rules that are in the public interest, and they get to set their own agendas and decide what that means.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re right, in modern US, it’s not true, because both parties have moved us away from what the constitution says, and given ( in the opinion of many) WAY too much power to unelected agency officials.

if we want to give that much power to unelected agencies, amend the constitution. today’s conservatives want to play by the rules

This is precisely what trump promised to do if elected. He won the election, and the people gave him control of the senate.

Elections have consequences.

It’s very dangerous to ignore parts of the constitution we don’t happen to like. If we want to impose serious restrictions on an entire massive industry that impacts all of us, there’s no way that should come from unelected agencies. The EPA has experts who can make suggestions, and they can help enforce the policies, but the policies have to come from elected people in congress, so that we have a say in shaping the policy.

Let’s say Desantis wins in 2024, and let’s say he has a republican congress to work with, and the gop has a razor thin majority, too small to get anything extreme past the filibuster. In that scenario, are you comfortable with the GOP skirting the constitution and having unelected agencies setting right-wing policy?

You’d go berserk, and you’d be right to go berserk.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you think that 535 people can put together all the rules and regulations to run this nation?
Do you think those 535 people actually write laws themselves?
How much is written by staff? By lobbyists?

Now everything will become a “major question” and bring administration to a halt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But but Kagans response what a joke

To be clear, the court today holds that Indian country within a state's territory is part of a state, not separate from a state," Kavanaugh wrote in a decision that scholars of Native American law said was a major departure from longstanding precedent.

Or Thomas conservatives only black friend

Justice Clarence Thomas invites new legal challenges to contraception and same-sex marriage rights

Justice Thomas Cites Debunked Claim That COVID Vaccines Are Made With Cells From ‘Aborted Children'

Thomas cited the claims in a dissent to the Supreme Court’s refusal to take up a challenge by health care workers who opposed New York's vaccine mandate on religious grounds.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device