Chris White Tech Reporter September 21, 2020
- President Donald Trump has an opportunity to make his environmental regulation rollbacks permanent if he places another conservative on the Supreme Court before Inauguration Day, legal experts argue.
- Adding another conservative justice will also greatly diminish Justice John Robert’s role as a swing member in which he occasionally sides with liberal justices, one legal expert at the University of Maryland suggested.
- The president can pave the road for future deregulations with one more justice, Myron Ebell, an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
If President Donald Trump replaces the deceased Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a conservative stalwart, then attempts to pull back on the president’s environmental regulatory rollbacks through the courts could be thwarted, some academics and legal experts say.
Putting another conservative justice on the Supreme Court of the United States before Inauguration Day could also diminish former Vice President Joe Biden’s chances of implementing a wide-ranging climate change plan in the event he defeats Trump in November, according to Jody Freeman, director of Harvard Law School’s environmental and energy law program.
“A further tilt of the Court in the direction it is already going … certainly won’t help the cause of environmental protection,” Freedman told the Washington Post Monday. Freedman cited what he believed was the conservative-leaning court’s skeptical position on regulations as reason to believe that the “cause for environmental protection” is in jeopardy.
Ginsburg, an 87-year-old liberal icon on the SCOTUS, died Friday due to complications from metastatic pancreatic cancer. Trump initially told reporters Saturday that he plans to announce a nominee “next week” before pushing back his timeline Monday, citing memorial services for Ginsburg.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a Sept. 18 statement that the Senate would vote on Trump’s nominee.
A legal decision from 2007 giving activists the opportunity to sue over climate change could be at risk under a more conservative court, according to one expert, which could endanger former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
Obama signed the 2016 rule in an attempt to rein in greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants. SCOTUS issued a stay on its implementation in 2016.
Conservative justices could use the Clean Power Plan as a Trojan horse to undermine the 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. the Environmental Protection Agency, which required the agency to regulate carbon dioxide and allowed states and advocacy groups to sue over climate change issues, Michael Gerrard, an environmental law professor at Columbia Law School, told the Post.
“If Trump is able to name Ginsburg’s replacement, that decision becomes a big target for those who want to shut down EPA regulation of greenhouse gases,” Gerrard said, referring to the 2007 case.
The Environmental Protection Agency under the helm of former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt introduced a replacement plan in 2018 called the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which asks states to improve coal plant efficiency. The Clean Power Plan, on the other hand, mandated that such plants reduce gas emissions.
Some experts believe the Clean Power Plan would force plants to close. (RELATED: Here’s How Trump’s Environmental Legacy Stacks Up With Obama’s Record)
Democrat-led states and environmental groups sued the government to toss out the ACE, leading to a potential showdown at the SCOTUS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is preparing to hear arguments regarding the ACE in October, according to The Washington Post. Trump’s regulatory rollbacks are pending in the lower courts, legal experts argue.
“The lower courts have played a powerful role in restraining the Trump administration,” Thomas McGarity, an environmental law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, told the Post. “Nearly all of the Trump administration’s rollbacks of Obama administration environmental initiatives are still pending in the lower courts and will therefore be ripe for review” in SCOTUS.
The president rolled back more than 90 environmental rules and regulations during his first three years in office, including many of the regulations imposed by his predecessor, The New York Times reported in December 2019. The NYT relied on an analysis from Harvard Law School, Columbia Law School and other sources to keep tabs on Trump’s numbers during his time in office.
In addition, a SCOTUS containing six conservative justices would create a seemingly insurmountable barrier for a future Democratic president, McGarity added.
“If the people elect a new president and put both houses of Congress in the control of the Democrats, the Supreme Court with six conservatives could provide a hurdle that the agencies under new leadership will have a hard time overcoming,” he said.
Myron Ebell, an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, agreed that Trump’s nominee, if confirmed, will likely make the president’s moves to peel back Obama’s environmental rules a permanent fixture in government. Ebell worked on Trump’s EPA transition team and is a fervent critic of Obama’s policies.
“I think the Supreme Court before Justice Ginsburg’s death was quite likely to uphold most of the Trump administration’s environmental and energy deregulatory actions,” Ebell told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The new court could be prepared to go much further in terms of striking down legislation and limiting deference to agencies.”
Chief Justice John Robert’s position as the court’s swing member, occasionally siding with the SCOTUS’ liberal justices, will be diminished, Robert Percival, professor and director of the environmental law program at the University of Maryland, told the Post.
“If a sixth conservative Justice is confirmed before Trump leaves office, Chief Justice Roberts no longer will be the swing vote and the other five conservatives would be free to embrace more extreme interpretations of the environmental laws,” Percival said. Roberts joined Ginsburg in April in ruling that a Hawaiian treatment plant could not exploit a loophole to avoid getting a Clean Water Act permit.
SCOTUS ruled 6 to 3 in April that the wastewater treatment plant could not avoid provisions of the rule prohibiting the release of pollutants into rivers, lakes and seas, by pumping the pollutants first into groundwater. The Trump administration determined that the Clean Water Act permitted the treatment plant to avoid a permit through the measurer, according to the Post.
Congress makes the laws, the President administers the laws and the US Federal Courts rule the country.
Exactly what I was thinking. Quite a shame that the supposedly impartial judicial branch has members labeled “conservative” and “liberal”. Essentially, power rests on the whims of the opinions of judges– the complete opposite of impartial.
I believe the other thing to take into account is that ‘climate change’ politics crosses the political divide, with many Republican believers of the climate alarm religion.
“the cause” yet again.
Most conservatives want clean air , clean water. The problem here is what he means by “environmental protection” is the CO2 obsession. They are NOT interested in the environment at all. They want marxist totalitarian control.
If Trump can get rid of the endangerment finding via SCOTUS, maybe he can get the federal EPA back to the mission its name indicates.
You mean the CO2 that scientists agree is a potential existential threat? That CO2?
Republican politicians, but NOT Republican voters. Indeed, it’s the exact opposite. Those politicians are on the way out.
Conservative judges follow the law, liberal judges legislate. All judges should be conservative. If people do not like the outcome, vote for lawmakers to change the laws. A true conservative judge would not change the meaning of a law to legislate from the bench. A true liberal judge has and would again.
Courts opposing Obamacare is ‘legislating’ , as the Laws were created by Congress and its for Congress to repeal.
Scalia was notorious for saying he relied on the ‘original intent’ but when it suited him to oppose that he did, his ‘originalisms’.
Striking down as unconstitutional any of the left’s wish list of command and control desires, is legislating. Really?
Can you name any opinion of Scalia’s that could not be tied to “orginal intent”, or are you just pulling another progressive by proclaiming that the founders all agreed with you?
Mr. Duker: Don’t know which Courts you refer to, courts aren’t supposed to oppose legislation. I’m not aware of any court that opposes Obamacare. Some people sued, claiming the ACA was unconstitutional. The Courts ruled on that, right? Do you remember the outcome? Evidently not.
Your slur of Scalia displays your ignorance, he consistently relied on the words written as understood by the folks when they wrote it. Don’t know where you read such nonsense, your source is not reliable.
Scalia was well known for saying the ‘intent’ of the 14th Admendment S1. was to free black men from slavery and cant possibly be used to create equal rights for women or gays etc.
That didnt stop him for agreeing the 14th Amendment could stop the vote counting in Florida in 2000, overiding the State Supreme Court, when the Constitution gives the election process to the States to run…. [
Bush V Gore is that case and “Court ruled that the use of different standards of counting in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause..]
The 14th amendment doesnt mention black men at all , and the section 1 is very broad
for all citizens and person as Im sure you know.
‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’
No need to be pedanatic…. The claim was liberal judges legislate .. when every one knows for all these sorts of cases the court rulings can overide legislation.
“A federal judge in Texas struck down the entire Affordable Care Act on Friday on the grounds that its mandate requiring people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional and the rest of the law cannot stand without it.”
It helps to stick to the substance of the comments and not substitute squirrels for argument against.
Care to provide a link to Scalia saying that the intent of the 14th amendment was only to free black slaves? Or is that just another case of your paranoia inventing data that never existed again?
I like to keep my copy close, but MarkW still beat me to it. Mr. Duker, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery. Scalia’s comment was directed at that, don’t you think? I am impressed that you can quote a part of the 14th Amendment, which says nothing about slavery. But after this post, I see below that you are just an anonymous tr0ll, no more pearls of wisdom shall I lay before you.
As usually, leftist trolls like Duker lie. Scalia said no such thing. What he did say was that the 14th Amendment, ratified in the wake of the Civil War giving rights to freed slaves, is silent on the matter. “Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex,” Scalia said. “The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that.”
If Joe Biden/Kamala Harris and their new Social Democratic Marxist party win the House, Senate and the WH, then they pack SCOTUS with 13-15 activist judges that will outnumber the 5-6 conservative appointees and the USA we have known for ~250 years is irrevocably damaged and maybe erased. Elections have consequences, and the marxist hoards are at the gate.
marxist hordes
marxist whores
For the record, every vote on a Supreme Court nominee of the past 45 years was voted on in less time than President Trump has between now and the end of his current term on January 20, 2021.
It is essential to replace RBG ASAP! The Dems are trying to steal this election through blatant frauds – from the needlessly-extended full-Gulag Covid-19 lockdown to ballot-stuffing with mail-in ballots to “refusing to concede the election” scams. The Dems have revealed themselves to be full-on Marxists, with their dysfunctional Green New Deal that will destroy America’s economy.
I have two engineering degrees and my expertise is energy and climate and I can assure you that green energy schemes like the Green New Deal cannot work – we published that conclusion in 2002 and nothing has changed. The rolling power blackouts in California are more evidence that we are correct.
We also published in 2002 that there is NO real global warming emergency and the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of that conclusion.
The global warming extremists have made ~50 very-scary climate predictions, and not one has materialized – their false scares are political, not scientific – concocted by wolves to stampede the sheep.
The ability to predict is the best objective means of assessing scientific competence, and the global warming alarmists have NO predictive track record – they have been 100% wrong about everything and nobody should believe these fraudsters – about anything!
The carbon dioxide endangerment finding is the largest clear and present danger to all free humanity.
That is all.
Lord God King Obama: “Well John, elections have consequences”
John McCain: “I’m reminded of that daily”
Here’s the deal. Susan Collins. Send her money. We recall what she did for Justice K. She was targeted after that important vote of hers. I’ve been sending her a little money now and again because of that. The Democrats have been rolling big money to her opponent. We always need allies, we need her.
Mr. White, you wrote in part: “The Environmental Protection Agency under the helm of former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt introduced a replacement plan in 2018 called the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which asks states to improve coal plant efficiency. The Clean Power Plan, on the other hand, mandated that such plants reduce gas emissions.”
I believe that the ACE act required coal plant operators to improve the thermodynamic efficiency of their plants, thereby reducing carbon dioxide emissions but that the CPP “mandated such plants to reduce gas emissions.” It seems on the surface that they are the same, differing only perhaps in degree. Or perhaps the CPP required reduction in emissions of other kinds of gasses to be reduced as well. Which is it?
It’s not either/or, just a matter of degree. ACE mandates an achievable goal. CPP mandates a probably impossible goal.
Yep, many coal plants were shut down.
Could be the level of reductions each plan required that made the difference? The ACE reductions, through efficiency, may have been financially feasible where the CCP may have required reductions that were not financially feasible or be, technically, possible with current technologies.
The latter would be entirely in keeping with Obama style regulation.
Max P
–If President Donald Trump replaces the deceased Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a conservative stalwart, then attempts to pull back on the president’s environmental regulatory rollbacks through the courts could be thwarted, some academics and legal experts say.–
Trump’s super power is making deals, he will make Congress pass the laws in second term- whether the the Rep hold both houses or neither of the houses- and Trump will not spend any of this term as lame duck- unless due to age, he physically become a lame duck.
And if gets re-elected, he going to change global international relationships- get a better middle east peace deal, and change Iran, China, and Russia. Build the wall, and bring US troops, home. And go to Mars.
-Putting another conservative justice on the Supreme Court of the United States before Inauguration Day could also diminish former Vice President Joe Biden’s chances of implementing a wide-ranging climate change plan in the event he defeats Trump in November, according to Jody Freeman, director of Harvard Law School’s environmental and energy law program.-
Joe Biden as president will manage to be a worse President of Obama. And Obama will happy because I don’t he wants to remembered as worst US president, ever.
So if thought Obama was weak and feckless President, Joe will re-define how weak US Presidents can get and largest effect will be international relations, and wars breaking out around the world. It’s not necessarily the case that Biden will start all these wars, other than his creating vacuum of power, globally. So get things like a nuclear arms race in middle east, and endless opportunities of disasters of wrong moves by all the players involved in the region- hot nuclear war may not break out in middle east, while Joe in office but probably closer to getting it in next decades. But mainly such power vacuum would have unexpected problems/conflicts and unexpected long term consequences.
But I don’t think China can emerge as a global super power, nor any other nation, but China could start a few wars, most dangerous being directly with India- but India would have to get involved in some manner with almost any war China starts. Upside is China may further unite many countries in the region.
Domestically, Joe will not do any more than Obama did, even if Dems hold both Houses. And don’t necessarily think stock markets will do any worst than did under Obama- probably immediately Dow Jones go to 20,000 and roughly stay there. Markets predict future and think Trump is going to win- would get a dip from that not happening- but Trump already made large changes, and these changes will more or less continue.
Joe Biden would be like electing the lamest duck, that possible to do, would be similar to Trump having serious mental health issues. And probably result in Pelosi losing her leadership position. She of course is on track to be worse Speaker of the House, ever.
Joe Biden if elected either won’t serve at all, or will be replaced very quickly by Kamala Harris, at least that is the senior Democrats and their billionaire donors’ intent. Kamala Harris was always Obama’s favorite Presidential candidate for a lot of reasons. It is just Kamala is terrible on the campaign trail, unlike her mentor. Harris withdrew in December after poling so low among Democrat voters and couldn’t raise any more money to keep going. Plus she said some very nasty things about Joe Biden at the Democratic debates.
Kamala Harris is so bad campaigning alone on her own that the DNC handlers don’t usually let her go out on her own. She regularly now appears only in tandem with someone else, like a Governor Newsom or other prominent Democrat, to not let her look so wooden and horrible.
The Democrats plan on replacing an elected Dementia Joe with the 25th Amendment, Section 4. process. But if a President (elect) Dementia Joe resists their attempts at his removal with a written letter to Congress saying he is “fit to serve”, a very real Constitutional Crisis will exist.
As far as the stock market and the economy, I think we know where that will go…. to the toilet under a Democratic President. There will be zero chance of a post-COVID US economic recovery with a Democrat President destroying affordable domestically-produced energy.
A Democrat President would be intent on returning the US back to Middle East oil dependency and destroying the US domestic energy production of natural gas to keep electricity affordable. The stock market will react accordingly, and with the soaring Federal deficits and debt, the US dollar will crater on the international currency markets if the US economy can’t support it with economic output and having to import much more oil from the Middle East.
All expertises and foresights given by experts in causa climate or “renewable energy” are proven wrong, we have no experts.
–Joe Biden if elected either won’t serve at all, or will be replaced very quickly by Kamala Harris, at least that is the senior Democrats and their billionaire donors’ intent.–
There is no reason to replace Joe.
Because Joe is idiot, he does what he told, and could be used as fall guy. Though can one say there could be lots opportunities for fall guys, because “Harris and team” can’t manage a lemonade stand.
So, could burn thru Joe- and then Harris and get even more people to burn thru. But it doesn’t mean they are effective- other destroying the Dem party- like Obama did.
And there are definite advantages to being in the Minority party, when majority can’t lead. And could be a reason Reps don’t win the election- a lot them don’t like being in a majority party. One thing Reps have some talent at is checking power- and the main reason they are elected in first place.
You have nation, armed to the teeth- a 100 million ‘army {which also probably include the real military] is the Dems inescapable “problem”. Police are not happy, and are not going to die, trying to take way guns. But illegal guns held by criminals- they are eager to do that.
So, only dem win, is to make life for average citizen better. Can “Harris and team”
do that? Can “Harris and team” even control their violent radicals?
If they could {and seems unlikely} they could have some chance. But like said, Pelosi will be gone. Not the Pelosi can lead anything, but it’s seems possible to get even worst leadership- and if at all possible, they will get it.
We have seen to date, no real citizen protest. Real protest {peaceful protest- though perhaps if needed, armed protest] can stop anything.
People might worry about Deep State, but even ineffective Deep State, will protect, itself. They fought against Trump as he was “Change”, and they will fight against “Change” no matter what it is.
And news media- popcorn. Riots, car chases, etc, is what they prefer, as compared to anything amounting to work.
So, only move is Joe and team will be cautious and cautious is doesn’t work. And they have got nothing. Their real mandate is “not Trump” and what happens if Trump goes on some nice vacation? They have got nothing.
Dems had President and both Houses- what did they do?
Did they stop the ocean from rising?
Their main story is they want to do something, but they can’t actually do anything- which will quickly become, evident.
And Trump has already changed the world, so people expect “more”.
And the fools can’t deliver.
I would not worry about it, Trump will win in Huuge landside victory.
Or do you imagine future Presidential candidates are going to be brain dead and hide in their basements while silly pointless rioting occurs in Dem cities as being the “winning plan”?
And what we really need for leadership is no leadership??
Nope, expect a lot more crying at MSM headquarters.
I tend to think it will more of psychotic crying: sad, confused, and weirdly happy at same time- and very hard to recover from. Lot’s therapy needed.
Because Joe is idiot, he does what he told, and could be used as fall guy.
While true, there’s one problem with that: As president, he won’t be able to hide in the white house basement for the next four years. The facts of his dementia will quickly become obvious to even the most oblivious when he steps into public view to perform his presidential duties. Not even the marxstream media will be able to cover for him for very long when that happens.
As opposed to the rambling incoherent speeches that Trump gives in Public all the time. he cant hold his concentration in meetings for longer than 60 sec- theres a whole train of people , most of them he employed to work in the WH , who say the same thing.
Staying in the White house isnt such a bad thing as opposed to spending far too much time as a hack on the Golf course or watching morning TV till 11am
Duker come on man….are you sure you weren’t referring to Biden?
As usual, when the facts don’t suit Duker, he just makes up the ones he needs.
If the only thing you have to motivate you in this world, is your hatred of those who are more successful than you are, you are doomed to a miserable existence.
“If the only thing you have to motivate you in this world, is your hatred of those who are more successful than you are, you are doomed to a miserable existence.”
OMG….Is your mirror broken at home?
Ahhhh Simon comes on with his strange facts of
“the President didn’t do anything about the Covid!”
He did the travel ban.
“Oh, well he didn’t do it fast enough.”
We get it Simon
I see my stalker has popped his pretty little head up again?
Getting tired of being ignored?
Derg, Simon comes here solely for the pleasure he gets from being soundly ridiculed.
Trump was the one who had to be rushed to Walter Reed Hospital with his White House doctor in the seat beside him and an alert for Pence to ‘ temporarily assume the duties of the Presidency’
There is video of the scramble to get into the cars on the White House driveway
Video please Duker
If Duker wants it to be true, then it is true. Much like his belief in Global Warming.
I dont believe in ‘global Warming’, Im of the same view as the main contributors, there is some warming , but the planet and warmed and cooled over eons anyway
Heres the video of Doctor joining Trump in the dash to Walter Reed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWBZWmR4cbU
and Pences standby
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/31/politics/trump-walter-reed-visit-pence/index.html
No doubt Trump will claim its a Stroke of genius!
Duker how do you know?
With so so much misinformation and unnamed sources how do you know?
CNN and youtube. You will believe anything so long as it goes along with what you want to believe.
Derg, he doesn’t need to know, he believes.
And besides, CNN would never lie.
While it isn’t CNN, MSNBC has been using a member of the Biden election committee to comment on Trump’s COVID policies without identifying the analyst’s connections with Biden.
Many of the tools that Republicans have used in the past to check Democrat power are being eliminated by the Democrats.
There is something off kilter with that women. For one thing, she has Hillary’s laugh.
https://www.air.tv/watch?v=nEP9yZTlTpyE6nL2aYJQaQ
I suspect the next democrat administration, be it 2021 or beyond, will be the and of the constitutional republic and ALL the rights guaranteed within it.
Why would they deviate now?
No need to worry about that , as its Trump who is saying ‘he will negotiate a 3rd term !
Gotta, love the Troll in Chief. He constantly trolls the left and the media (I repeat myself) and they take everything he says sooo seriously and don’t realize how ridiculous they look every time they fall for his trolling.
Hey Duker – Yeah – there’s a lot of reason to worry about that – mostly because it’s all they ever talk about – despite what idiot apologists in the press try to explain away.
And how moronic do you really have to be to find Trump’s blue-collar directed speeches as incoherent? I mean, I’ve been reading your posts and you’re clearly trying hard to sell it – this in the face of Biden genuine idiocy – and the not even-concealed radicalism of the progressive left.
John – it isn’t even that they take him ‘seriously’, so much as being obstinate douchebags about literally every word he says.
Remember when they pretended to be ‘confused’ by Trump’s ‘positively negative’ virus test? Compare that to every post Duker’s made here today.
“Some experts believe the Clean Power Plan would force plants to close.”
“Some experts”??? That was CPP’s very purpose, to close coal plants across the US en mass. Chris White, the writer here, isn’t very smart or he think his readers are dumb.
Furthermore, Chris White wrote, “Conservative justices could use the Clean Power Plan as a Trojan horse to undermine the 2007…”
Does he even understand that the Supreme Court can only hear cases brought before it by litigants?
And that only a small fraction of cases petitioned to the Supreme Court are even granted Certiorari?
The CPP is moot as long as Trump is President and probably dead anyways. CPP was unconstitutional because it was Obama’s Executive Branch-only action that directed The States to actions not in accordance with laws passed by Congress. The only reason the CPP was written as it was by the EPA was because it had no legal teeth in Federal Law on The States. The EPA’s Endangerment Finding on CO2 was only an extension of the Clean Air Act (CAA), an extension that extended the “airborne pollutant” label to green house gasses, which was never Congress’s intent or wording in the original enabling CAA legislation passed and signed into law.
This article by Chris White is sad reflection on the lack of knowledge on basic issues of the The Daily Caller writers and editors.
Excellent points, Joel.
Another other point is the Massachusetts vs. EPA decision only opened the door to allow EPA to regulate CO2, it did not require it. I have seen that mistake repeated time and again. It took the Endangerment Finding by EPA to allow regulations to be drafted implementing CO2 regulation under the CAA. If the Finding were revoked, the teeth for CO2 regulation would go away.
And the CPP is stayed due to the Supreme Court decision. ACE is a blocking scheme to keep it stayed by replacing the CPP as the enforcement mechanism of the Finding. Its main difference it it is “inside the fence,” regulating the sources, not the whole energy sector. It also does a poor job, being written by lawyers who have no understanding of efficiency or of how a power plant works.
Here’s the deal. Democrats want human CO2 emissions rolled back to the same level as in the 1840’s. They claim this will save the earth. But no worries, renewable energy will replace all we will ever need.
If you believe this, then by all means, vote for democrats. Otherwise, you might want not to.
Due to the COVID19 emergency and the need for social distancing, all Republicans vote on Tuesday, and all Democrats vote on Wednesday.
And up to nine days later if necessary to swing the vote, once they’ve made an initial count.
Unfortunately, MarkW, Democrats believe in voting early and often.
If I were a conservative leaning judge on the Supreme Court, and if Biden were to win, I would be worried about my personal safety. I’d feel like a really tempting target for some SJW kook looking forward to my replacement. Things are just that bad right now.
Supreme Court [and judges in general] have security, as does Congress.
Sure the chances are greater, as media constant lying is causing the more unstable, to head more in one direction.
But Trump supporters in general probably face a greater danger. And we still are mostly
living in fairly safe nation {generally} – as compared to say 100 years ago.
And even though some things have done about problem of school shootings, I would still worry more about that.
It looks like the Republicans have the votes in the Senate to confirm President Trump’s pick to fill the vacant SC seat! No matter who he picks the DemoKKKrats will riot, burn and destroy as they have no other options available at this time!
One can only hope that their childish and destructive behavior will drive even more moderates and independents to vote for Trump and give him a large enough margin that all the DemoKKKrat election fraud schemes are negated!
With four more years to work his “magic wand,” perhaps we can get some much needed sanity restored to our political system! A reversal of the CO2 endangerment finding along with a national voter ID law would see the US prospering for decades as the DemoKKKrats would have little influence without their widespread voter fraud and ballot harvesting schemes!
In other news, the DOJ under AG Barr is looking at designating NYC, Portland and Seattle “anarchist jurisdictions” that deprive their citizens of due process and the rule of law, and should therefore not receive federal funding ! Winning! I can’t get enough of it!
Mitt Romney seems to follow Trump now.
Just found in German news.
It’s not that Mitt is following Trump, it’s just that he’s not standing in his way at this moment. Still plenty of time for the RINO to backstab at the last minute a la McCain with Obamacare.
You mean the Chicago-style gangster regulators and con job specialists of the Obama Era are gone? Give them an award for Best Asthma Actors.
I would love to see them do away with the “CO2” is a pollutant ruling they gave the EPA years ago.
Take a look at how Michael Moore pushes the CO2 crisis in his recent interview with The Hill.
Step 1 would be to lower one’s consumption – something Michael has obviously not done.
There is a video with Milton Friedman on YouTube with both Michael Moore and Bernie Sanders where he is explaining capitalism to both of them. This was in the 70’s. Michael was very skinny at the time. Milton’s lecture obviously had no effect on either.
Link,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9f9lsbctZA
Illuminating!
Listen to Moore’s, “I am a supporter of abortion so I don’t think all human life is valuable” Not verbatim but close. Think of that statement!
BTW, Milton uses the correct term Free Enterprise, not “Capitalism”, the Marxist pejorative.
Please, all, stop using the Marxist term, and emphasize the FREE of “free enterprise”.
Thank you in advance.
The prospective appointees will be Conservative and Constitution abiding and whether they choose to OK one now or after the election it will still be one of them unless we have rogue Senators and with what they know and how they/GOP have been treated for the last 3+ years I doubt that will happen. If anyone thinks the Democrats wouldn’t do the same thing in this situation you’re naive.
Indeed. The media keeps talking about how the Republicans have changed their position but fail to mention how the Dems changed their tune. In 2016, the Dems were all set to fill the vacant seat in an election year, Now they’re not. Why? Because now it’s not a Dem who is doing the appointing.
The fact is when one party controls both the presidency and the Senate, the seat is generally going to be filled. When the two are split between parties, the seat generally isn’t going to be. 19 times there was a vacancy when the Senate and president were of the same party, 17 were confirmed. 10 times the senate and President were of different parties, 8 of those ended without a confirmation.
FDR, Taft, Wilson, Hoover, Jefferson, Harrison, and Cleveland all made nominations during their re-election campaigns and as their party held the senator at the time, those nomination were all confirmed. Contrary to what the Dems and the media want everyone to believe, there is nothing usual about Trump Nominating and the Senate taking up action to confirm. It’s happened numerous times before.
When asked if the Senate had an obligation to act on the President’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg responded “That’s their job”
Ginsburg added that “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year,”
So Dems, Listen to Ruth, President Trump gets to nominate and the Senate gets to act on that nomination: it’s their job.
“If a sixth conservative Justice is confirmed before Trump leaves office, Chief Justice Roberts no longer will be the swing vote and the other five conservatives would be free to embrace more extreme interpretations of the environmental laws,” Percival said. Roberts joined Ginsburg in April in ruling that a Hawaiian treatment plant could not exploit a loophole to avoid getting a Clean Water Act permit.
Extreme is not the same as constitutional. They would be free to embrace constitutional interpretations and, more importantly, constitutional limits of laws.
If the constitution no longer works for you, do what needs to be done, change the constitution. Instead they keep trying to reinterpret it into meaning what they want it to mean.
No kidding, FDR started this mess.
“Conservative justices could use the Clean Power Plan as a Trojan horse to undermine the 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. the Environmental Protection Agency, which required the agency to regulate carbon dioxide and allowed states and advocacy groups to sue over climate change issues…”
It figures that it would be the state of Mass. that pushed such a ruling. Mass. is a one party state. The legislature is almost entirely Democrat. Governors are often Republicans but not real Republicans- mostly characters like Romney and now Baker. The state also has a long history of corruption. The media here is fanatically left wing. Taxes are extremely high- especially local taxes due to the immense power of the teachers’ union. State taxes are high due to very large state bureaucracy which is mostly vastly overpaid.
Off topic, sorry, but- “China goes big on climate change with new goal of carbon neutrality by 2060 ”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/china-goes-big-on-climate-change-with-new-goal-of-carbon-neutrality-by-2060/ar-BB19jDnS
Only an idiot would believe that.
2060, so after all the Chinese communist leadership is dead.
Brave move.
The Prez wasn’t very complimentary of China at his UN address.
Nice- of course here in ultra politically correct Massachusetts- Trump’s speech was NOT mentioned in any newspapers or TV news shows.
2060? But wait, wasn’t their Paris goal 2030? Why do they need another 30 years? They’re just stringing the useful idiots in the west along. And like the fools that they are the far leftists in the west fall for it every time.
That’s going to leave a mark. He ties WHO to China. Got to love it.
The Dems have said that if given power they’ll pack the courts by adding 4 or more justices. If Trump and the Rs win in Nov, Trump should point to all the Dems that have been suggesting that they’d do that and say “OK, let’s add 4 more justices, I got plenty on my list to chose from” and watch the libs heads explode in outrage.
There is a problem with low turnover on the Supreme Court caused by how long justices live these days.
I’ve proposed passing a law, that if in the last year of a president’s first term, there hasn’t been a SC opening, the president would get to make one appointment, increasing the size of the court by one seat.
Needs to be an even number to avoid ties, so 2?
A tie just means that the existing judgement stands. It isn’t a problem.
Not a problem for the lawyers, but for everyone else, it actually remains a problem because the judgement stands *for that jurisdiction* only, meaning the issue can, and will , continue to be litigated (and possibly have a return to the Supreme Court level) in other jurisdictions. IE it won’t be settled law of the land.
From the article: ““If the people elect a new president and put both houses of Congress in the control of the Democrats, the Supreme Court with six conservatives could provide a hurdle that the agencies under new leadership will have a hard time overcoming,” he said.”
Assuming a new Democrat leadership was honest. Which they are not. They have already demonstrated their dishonesty and corruption. If we elect any of these fools to office, we deserve what we get.
If the Democrats take control, that may mean the end of our Republic. They have shown themselves dishonest and ruthless enough to attempt a coup against the Trump administration, and if they gain power again, they will correct their mistakes of the past, and will put a lock on Democrats remaining in power by hook or crook.
Had Hillary won last time, the public would have never known about all the illegalities going on behind the scenes because Hillary and the Democrats would not have allowed it to become public.
If the Democrats win this time, they will make sure the public doesn’t see what they are doing behind the scenes. They thought Hillary was going to win so they were not too worried about covering their tracks and that’s how they got caught. They’ll cover their tracks in the future, until they aquire enough power to no longer care what the public thinks.
China’s Xi doesn’t much worry about covering his tracks. I see where a Chinese citizen who criticized Xi’s handling of the Wuhan virus just got sentenced to 18 years in jail. Expect Democrats to do the same kinds of things if they implement Xi’s plan here in the U.S. The Democrats like the way China is governed. They want it here in the U.S. with them in charge.
In the face of dishonest Democrats, I’m afraid an extra conservative on the Supreme Court won’t make much difference. The Democrats will find some way to neutralize the coservatives, legally or illegally if they get the political power to do so. Don’t give it to them, if you value your personal freedoms.
I would have thought Trump would make clear his female nomination and then call on Biden and the Dems to put up their alternative candidate for the electors to consider. That’s the smart political play here as he should know trying to rush the appointment will be difficult with the time left and as noted it would tempt the Dems in power to increase the number of Judges. No better to put up their conservative woman candidate and dare Biden and Co to put up before the electors one of his rabid Metoo types. Biden would likely take the politically expedient path of nominating a middle of the road compromise woman and as such be committed to her appointment should he win.
Trump has been calling for Biden to put up his list of potential SC nominees. Biden has proclaimed that he won’t fall for this attempt by Trump to change the subject. Not sure if Biden read that off the teleprompter or if it was fed to him through his ear phone.
Chuckle. Meanwhile here’s another lefty changing the subject for the global base-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/china-s-surprise-climate-pledge-leaves-australia-naked-in-the-wind-analysts-say/ar-BB19mrBo
We’ll be Peking in 2030 and then it’s all downhill from there to 2060 doomsters. Just you wait and see.
Bloomberg may be in trouble with the authorities in Florida.
Under Florida law, felons can’t apply to have their voting rights restored until they have fully served their sentence. Under Florida law, “fully served” doesn’t just cover their jail time, but also includes fines and court ordered restitution. Bloomberg has started putting together a group to raise money to pay these fines and restitution costs so that felons can vote. (Funny how confident Democrats are that felons are going to vote for them.)
Problem is that it is also illegal under Florida law for anyone to offer inducements in order to get people to vote.
(Funny how confident Democrats are that felons are going to vote for them.)
Well considering the lack of regard Democrats have for the laws (except where the laws can be used against their opponents), felons are Dems kind of people.
felon
[ˈfelən]
NOUN
1. Democrat who got caught. 😉
The problem is that Congress refuses to take the hard vote of whether CO2 is an evil pollutant or a live-saving plant food. Thus each President has his Secretary or head of the EPA declare it to be what the President wants. What we need are legislators who are willing to vote on important issues. What we don’t have are legislators who want to vote on anything except what will further their political careers.