SCOTUS and whatnot

[1984Echoes]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

... I get the idea that a regulatory agency can’t choose for itself what it regulates, but speaking strictly to the issue of whether the EPA should be able to regulate emissions...

Also...

I thought their mandate had some vagueness in it specifically because an unknown contaminant might pop up that they would have to work to clean up.

Meaning... the mandate can't just be that they are allowed to clean up SO2 and ONLY SO2... 

And I know that their mandate does NOT say they can clean up SO2 but they are NOT ALLOWED to cleanup CO2...

IIRC, their mandate is to clean up SO2 and any other air contaminants. They should absolutely be able to regulate emissions. Period.

I don't see how the Supreme can restrict their ability to regulate emissions when their mandate is both specific and non-specific, CO2 is not strictly FORBIDDEN to be regulated, and the non-specific area of their mandate absolutely (is broad enough to) include any general pollutant and specific pollutant in air emissions.

Edited July 1, 2022 by 1984Echoes

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Also...

I thought their mandate had some vagueness in it specifically because an unknown contaminant might pop up that they would have to work to clean up.

Meaning... the mandate can't just be that they are allowed to clean up SO2 and ONLY SO2... 

And I know that their mandate does NOT say they can clean up SO2 but they are NOT ALLOWED to cleanup CO2...

IIRC, their mandate is to clean up SO2 and any other air contaminants. They should absolutely be able to regulate emissions. Period.

I don't see how the Supreme can restrict their ability to regulate emissions when their mandate is both specific and non-specific, CO2 is not strictly FORBIDDEN to be regulated, and the non-specific area of their mandate absolutely (is broad enough to) include any general pollutant and specific pollutant in air emissions.

One factor is that there is presumption in law that when statutes enumerate things, that list is limiting. Now there are lots of different laws that give EPA mandates, and some give the agency more leeway than others for sure, that's why they thought they had a chance to get this through, but the problem with CO2 is that you don't even have the mandate for the objective. So for instance with SO2 the objective is stated - acid rain. EPA has lot of individual mandates - around tailpipe emissions, specific industries like steel, surface water pollution etc, but Congress has never given them one for climate change/CO2. And if you think about it, once you regulate CO2 you have a ton of major policy choices implicit in that -  How much? How fast? You are going to be making choices that put some industries out of business and boost others, you may favor certain regions of the country over others. Do you want the EPA administrator to have the power to tell you to scrap your gas furnace by next year or that CAFE standards get doubled in 3? Those are policy decisions that need to be made at the political level and then those mandates passed to EPA for implementation/enforcement.

[1984Echoes]

46 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

One factor is that there is presumption in law that when statutes enumerate things, that list is limiting. Now there are lots of different laws that give EPA mandates, and some give the agency more leeway than others for sure, that's why they thought they had a chance to get this through, but the problem with CO2 is that you don't even have the mandate for the objective. So for instance with SO2 the objective is stated - acid rain. EPA has lot of individual mandates - around tailpipe emissions, specific industries like steel, surface water pollution etc, but Congress has never given them one for climate change/CO2. And if you think about it, once you regulate CO2 you have a ton of major policy choices implicit in that -  How much? How fast? You are going to be making choices that put some industries out of business and boost others, you may favor certain regions of the country over others. Do you want the EPA administrator to have the power to tell you to scrap your gas furnace by next year or that CAFE standards get doubled in 3? Those are policy decisions that need to be made at the political level and then those mandates passed to EPA for implementation/enforcement.

Yep... OK.

I'm onboard with that.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

What's the over/under on the amount of time it takes the fascist, Christian Fundamentalist Court to overturn Obergfell and gay marriage with it.

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

What's the over/under on the amount of time it takes the fascist, Christian Fundamentalist Court to overturn Obergfell and gay marriage with it.

A year from today.

[CMRivdogs]

 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[chasfh]

I have wondered since the beginning whether Alito leaked it on purpose, whether of his own accord or under strong advisement from his contacts in the party.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I have wondered since the beginning whether Alito leaked it on purpose, whether of his own accord or under strong advisement from his contacts in the party.

I had actually wondered the opposite - whether the Chief leaked it as means to show the reaction to Kavanaugh/Barrett in a kind of jujitsu This reporting argues the opposite of course. 

Not sure how a leak would solidify Alito's position other than to show 5 Justices has voted that way so a different opinion in the end would prove some kind of 'manipulation', but would that have mattered to Roberts? IDK. Not to mention that Alito's mind is such a morass of ideo-religious illogic that trying to find rationality in his opinions or behavior is probably futile.

[oblong]

I’m certain the leaker is a right by because Fox and the like quit talking about it. You would have thought it was a national security issue. 

[chasfh]

20 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I had actually wondered the opposite - whether the Chief leaked it as means to show the reaction to Kavanaugh/Barrett in a kind of jujitsu This reporting argues the opposite of course. 

Not sure how a leak would solidify Alito's position other than to show 5 Justices has voted that way so a different opinion in the end would prove some kind of 'manipulation', but would that have mattered to Roberts? IDK. Not to mention that Alito's mind is such a morass of ideo-religious illogic that trying to find rationality in his opinions or behavior is probably futile.

I think the reason Alito would be advised to leak the decision is to get it out there so that the initial shock and firestorm about it would get out of the way; they get the two sides shouting at each other about it in order to shift their anger away from the Court and toward the people on the other side; and then by the time the decision actually happens, no one is surprised by it, and the Court does not take all the heat for a shocking surprise decision coming seemingly out of left field. There is value to people’s anger being much more diffused at the hour the decision is actually reported.

It’s the same principle as leaking stories about gas going up to $X soon: you get everyone mad about it while prices are low, they run out of steam on complaining about it before it even happens, and then by the time it actually does hit $X, everyone is already used to the idea and have baked it into their budget, and world keep turning.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I think the reason Alito would be advised to leak the decision is to get it out there so that the initial shock and firestorm about it would get out of the way; they get the two sides shouting at each other about it in order to shift their anger away from the Court and toward the people on the other side; and then by the time the decision actually happens, no one is surprised by it, and the Court does not take all the heat for a shocking surprise decision coming seemingly out of left field. There is value to people’s anger being much more diffused at the hour the decision is actually reported.

It’s the same principle as leaking stories about gas going up to $X soon: you get everyone mad about it while prices are low, they run out of steam on complaining about it before it even happens, and then by the time it actually does hit $X, everyone is already used to the idea and have baked it into their budget, and world keep turning.

the only hope for this court is that somebody dies, or the Chief can pry Barrett or Kavanaugh away from Alito and Thomas, but TBH, it's never clear how much the Chief wants to. It's hard to know if the Chief has actually grown concerned about the quality of law the court is making, or just it's public image. 

[pfife]

the chief is definitely a chief and that's a problem LOL

[CMRivdogs]

Mr Virginia Thomas needs to recuse himself of any election rulings, of course he won't.

 

 

[chasfh]

If nothing else, we now know that Lindsey Graham knows things about Ginni Thomas.

Lifted from Twitter: "So a justice who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court just covered for a senator who shouldn't be in the Senate."

[ewsieg]

2 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

Mr Virginia Thomas needs to recuse himself of any election rulings, of course he won't.

 

 

I'm not sure exactly how the process goes, but you can request a disqualification of a judge on an issue in front of their court.  The process would need to play out with an overturn of the original order to force Graham to testify I'd assume which would be done at the SCOTUS level and as Thomas is on the Supreme Court, I think he could still refuse to recuse himself for that vote, but then if a disqualification request passed on the Supreme Court, does that mean Georgia could push for another vote on pushing Graham to testify?  IDK, sounds like a legal loop.

Wonder if there are backroom talks with Thomas regarding this as well.  Roberts knows this is making a mockery of the Supreme Court if Thomas is voting on anything election related.

 

 

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

I'm not sure exactly how the process goes,

the way it goes it that SCOTUS has exempted itself from all the rules it has made for the lower levels of the Federal Judiciary - so probability of recourse = 0.

[CMRivdogs]

 

[oblong]

isn't it kind of a moot point anyway?  So what if they do get them?  That just means some people saw them.  They won't be released publicly and nothing of substance will happen if the R's take the house.

 

[romad1]

38 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

 

not cool dude

[CMRivdogs]

 

[CMRivdogs]

 

[LaceyLou]

6 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

 

This is all over (what's left of) Twitter. Is it behind a paywall? 

[chasfh]

No wonder nobody trusts the courts anymore. Regardless of their high-profile misses throughout history, they were supposed to be the one institution most dedicated to fairness of jurisprudence. 

[CMRivdogs]

Quote

 

Quote

Justice Samuel Alito is facing backlash after making a joke about Black children wearing Ku Klux Klan outfits during Supreme Court oral arguments.

On Monday (December 5), the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of a Colorado Christian graphic artist who objects to designing wedding websites for gay couples due to her faith, per HuffPost.

After attorney Kristen Waggoner presented her arguments in favor of the designer, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson posed a hypothetical question of whether a photographer would be able to refuse to take photos of a white Santa Claus with Black children. Waggoner said the photographer could object to taking the photos.

Justice Alito then tried to flip Jackson’s analogy, asking if a Black Santa had to take pictures with a child dressed in a KKK robe. Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson immediately shut down the notion, noting that “Ku Klux Klan outfits are not protected characteristics under public accommodation laws.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor chimed in, saying “presumedly, that would be the same Ku Klux Klan outfit regardless whether if the child was Black or white or any other characteristic.”

Alito then cracked the joke: “You do see a lot of Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits all the time.”

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by CMRivdogs
Edited for context