We need more justices appointed to our Supreme Court ASAP. In the 1860’s, america’s population was 35 million. We had 9 justices. Our population is now 350 million. We need at least three more so America can be better represented by folks who support the majority of Americans rather than dark money. ❤️🤍💙🇺🇸
SC justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. SC justices are not appointed to represent anyone, rather they are appointed to uphold our Constitution.
I agree! We need more nominated and confirmed to uphold the constitution. They are not in place to take bribes or support those that lobby or bribe them. Call it what you want, however they should work for the people, not their religion or their own values or those that groom them and give them gifts and free undisclosed vacations.
Hi Jill I’am seeing a road map I don’t like so I’m wondering where you are going? It has been a while but in the seventh grade I learned about the start of our government, and the way it was presented to me is not the way that you want it to go.
Click on the Judicial branch to the left and it will take you to an Overview of the federal judiciary.
The why it was explained to me, the Supreme Court of the U.S was like an Umpire at a ball game. They called the strikes, the balls, the outs, they had the final say on the rules of the game. How about them Yankee’s, perhaps if they don’t like losing should they get new or more Umps?
You write “We need at least three more so America can be better represented by folks who support the majority of Americans” that may be what you wish them to do, but that is not their function.
Perhaps someone should explain your thoughts on the Court as umpire to Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society.
They advised Trump on the nominations of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. And before that, Leo helped pick the court’s three other conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. And somehow, just somehow, the Court is now issuing mostly conservative opinions, overturning precedent, just as Leo and the Federalist Society wished them to do.
Looks to me, and many others, like the Court’s ball field got stacked with six umps that tend to call strikes for liberal batters and balls for conservative ones.
Bob are you in favor of “packing” the Supreme Court of the U.S with judges until the wished for opinion, is given? Because that’s the road jill is mapping out.
My reply to you dealt with your position that Supreme Court justices should be like baseball's umpires -- unbiased arbiters of the rules of the game. It didn't deal with adding additional justices to the current nine.
I gave an example of how a conservative organization recommended conservative candidates to conservative presidents, the latest being Trump's vow to end Roe v. Wade. Which the Court did, despite the supposed affirmations by its new members of respecting precedent.
The above gives lie to your notion of Court justices acting as umpires.
(By the way, know any umpires who take hundreds of thousands of dollars in "gifts" from one team owner, then umpires the games in which the owner's team is playing? Or an umpire who flies the flag of a particular team at both his residence and his vacation home? Ah, yes, just calling balls and strikes....)
So, if you really believe that Court justices should act as unbiased umpires, then the selection of Court candidates in order to achieve a particular predetermined political outcome, like, say, overturning Roe v. Wade, should be anathema to you. Right?
I disagree with your statement. It appears that, at least ion this matter, the SC is stating that the EPA needs to better do its job.
Below is information that (along with the source) link that provides a more accurate explanation of the SC decision:
"The Supreme Court granted the applications for a stay, halting enforcement of the EPA’s rule against the applicants pending the disposition of the applicants’ petition for review in the D.C. Circuit and any petition for writ of certiorari, timely sought. The Court found that the applicants were likely to prevail on their claim that the EPA’s action was arbitrary or capricious because the agency failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made, and ignored an important aspect of the problem. The EPA’s alternative arguments were unavailing.
Annotation
PRIMARY HOLDING
When the EPA offered no reasoned response to legitimate concerns posed during the comment period for a rule, this likely indicated that the EPA’s final rule was not reasonably explained."
"The Supreme Court on Thursday temporarily blocked a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce air pollution from power plants and other industrial facilities in 23 states. By a vote of 5-4, the justices granted a request from three states, as well as several companies and trade associations affected by the rule, to put the rule on hold while a challenge to it continues in a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.
Given the considerations on both sides of the debate, Gorsuch continued, the key question in deciding whether to put the plan on hold temporarily is whether the challengers are ultimately likely to prevail on their argument that the plan is flawed. Here, Gorsuch reasoned, the scale tips in favor of the challengers, because the EPA did not explain why the emissions-control measures required by the plan – which were based on the assumption that the plan would apply to all 23 states – should still apply even if (as eventually happened) fewer states remained in the plan."
This is what happens because I read balanced information and not one-sided propaganda. If you kept reading you would find the pertinent response:
“ Justice Amy Coney Barrett penned a dissent that was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She criticized the majority for blocking enforcement of the EPA’s plan “based on an underdeveloped theory that is unlikely to succeed on the merits.” Although skeptical about whether, for procedural reasons, the challengers could even bring their lawsuit, she contended that the EPA had provided a sufficient explanation for the plan to survive. “EPA,” she wrote, “would have promulgated the same plan even if fewer States were covered.”
But more broadly, Barrett complained, “the Court’s injunction leaves large swaths of upwind States free to keep contributing significantly to their downwind neighbors’ ozone problems for the next several years.” And the court “justifies this decision based on an alleged procedural error that likely had no impact on the plan.”
The impact of "acid rain" was real. I guess polluters just don't care about anything except $. God forbid they use ingenuity to come up with cost effective ways to decrease the pollution. Makes me wonder if OSHA will lose "teeth" like the EPA.
OSHA has already lost "teeth" - remember during djt's term & the relaxing(to put it mildly) of any impact OSHA was allowed to have in regard to the meat-packing plants?
I worked for a construction management firm for years (20 years ago) and we had to have a safety guy who covered all our jobsites to make sure we were up to snuff with OSHA and OSHA definitely had teeth back then.
Devestating decision. I'm a native 'Dacker and know first hand, as many do, what it was like to have a local lake or pond become crystal clear, but devoid of life. I can't fathom the insanity we are living through these days..... And last night's debate was a frightening reminder of how bad our choices are for the next election.
Below is information that (along with the source) link that provides a more accurate explanation of the SC decision:
"The Supreme Court granted the applications for a stay, halting enforcement of the EPA’s rule against the applicants pending the disposition of the applicants’ petition for review in the D.C. Circuit and any petition for writ of certiorari, timely sought. The Court found that the applicants were likely to prevail on their claim that the EPA’s action was arbitrary or capricious because the agency failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made, and ignored an important aspect of the problem. The EPA’s alternative arguments were unavailing.
Annotation
PRIMARY HOLDING
When the EPA offered no reasoned response to legitimate concerns posed during the comment period for a rule, this likely indicated that the EPA’s final rule was
"By a 5-4 vote on Thursday, the Supreme Court blocked the requirement that factories and power plants in the Midwest cut air pollution that drifts into the Eastern states because it believes that agencies such as the EPA don't have that type of authority."
I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion or what source of information you used, but it seems that you may not be stating correctly the SC decision in this matter.
Below is information that (along with the source) link that provides a more accurate explanation of the SC decision:
"The Supreme Court granted the applications for a stay, halting enforcement of the EPA’s rule against the applicants pending the disposition of the applicants’ petition for review in the D.C. Circuit and any petition for writ of certiorari, timely sought. The Court found that the applicants were likely to prevail on their claim that the EPA’s action was arbitrary or capricious because the agency failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made, and ignored an important aspect of the problem. The EPA’s alternative arguments were unavailing.
Annotation
PRIMARY HOLDING
When the EPA offered no reasoned response to legitimate concerns posed during the comment period for a rule, this likely indicated that the EPA’s final rule was not reasonably explained."
I echo your disappointment Ken, regarding the Supreme Court's finding agains the "Good Neighbor" EPA policy that largely helped to reduce acid rain in our beloved Adirondack Lakes. A few current residents of our area still around that I know worked legislatively on the original EPA policy in the early '90's, putting in a great deal of effort and research to get it through. Thought it was over and done with. Now, 30+ years later with our lakes much the better due to the policy, they are once again in peril. I just hope the increase in green energy sources and reduction in Midwest coal burning plants since the '90's could be on positive. Perhaps Congress can pass legislation giving the EPA this specific authority. Not sure if that's even plausible with the current Congress., ie. the environmental apathy our own Rep. Stefanik harbors even towards her own Adirondack Park.
Below is information that (along with the source) link that provides a more accurate explanation of the SC decision:
"The Supreme Court granted the applications for a stay, halting enforcement of the EPA’s rule against the applicants pending the disposition of the applicants’ petition for review in the D.C. Circuit and any petition for writ of certiorari, timely sought. The Court found that the applicants were likely to prevail on their claim that the EPA’s action was arbitrary or capricious because the agency failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made, and ignored an important aspect of the problem. The EPA’s alternative arguments were unavailing.
Annotation
PRIMARY HOLDING
When the EPA offered no reasoned response to legitimate concerns posed during the comment period for a rule, this likely indicated that the EPA’s final rule was not reasonably explained."
Ken wrote: “By a 5-4 vote on Thursday, the Supreme Court blocked the requirement that factories and power plants in the Midwest cut air pollution that drifts into the Eastern states because it believes that agencies such as the EPA don't have that type of authority. // This was the third ruling against the EPA in recent years. Previously, the court had limited its authority to address climate change and water pollution.”
And today, the Court issued a fourth ruling that will reduce the authority of executive agencies and further imperil our environment. In that ruling on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451, and Relentless v. Department of Commerce, No. 22-1219, the Court overruled a longstanding legal precedent that afforded deference to federal agencies in carrying out legislation passed by Congress.
Yes the Green Mountains, the hills green forever. Adirondacks due north and Green Mountins just east.After three years in CA. I really missed fall again in 1991. Not a fan of my first winter back in NY. Thought I'd freeze to death. Stumbled got married and stayed. Yeah I occasionally still at 55 shovel w a sweatshirt or just a long sleeved shirt and boots.
Yeah its warmer too.
But those high talking scientists are no match for Stefanik and her bullshit tongued Trump Daddy.
The future?
Joe's not a promising bet.
Trump sadly might be in office again. The rest of the globes at a low boil...
Might be time to pray folks.
Pretty sad the country we live in is really a mess.
I’m well aware of our three branches of government. They were put in place by our forefathers as checks and balances of one another. Our democracy is “of the people, by the people and for the people.” It is understood that the majority rules and the minority is protected, not the other way around. ❤️🤍💙🇺🇸
The supreme court is stacked to the “conservative” side right now. I have it in quotes because these don’t seem to be your grandpa’s conservatives. The court has always swung back and forth from liberal to conservative, as it naturally would depending on which president nominated the justices. What is different these days is what passes for conservative. In the past, whether liberal or conservative, I think most, if not quite all, the justices had a sense that the job was bigger than they were; their decisions would be shaping the way the nation grew, so they better get it right.
The ethics of being a judge require one to be impartial, and more importantly, to recognize when impartiality might be difficult, or even just have the appearance of being difficult. Then their obligation is to either recuse themselves or to proceed with extra, self aware caution. There are conservative judges on the court today that absolutely give the appearance of being biased and partial to one side. To use the sports analogy, if the umpire is a die hard Yankee fan, and the owner of the Yankees is taking them on vacations and paying for homes and their relative’s tuition, then every time they call a strike on the other team, well then yeah, people are going to question their impartiality. And if those calls seem particularly egregious, like the bump stock decision was, for instance, the questioning turns into outright distrust. Some of the conservative judges on the court today don’t seem to care anymore whether or not the public trusts them. They’re there for life if they so choose, and they plan to make the most of it. There was never anything keeping Supreme Court justices honest except their own sense of honor, and if that is missing we will see the results we are seeing now.
Yes, often the liberals vote as a bloc, but so do the conservatives. This latest batch of decisions in recent days has had some surprising combinations, though. But it is not a problem, for me at least, that liberal judges and conservative judges see things differently. I would prefer judges be nominated and confirmed who are more centrist in their personal beliefs, but as we say in Kindergarten, you get what you get and you don’t throw a fit. As long as they keep open minds, we should be able to muddle through, even if we don’t like every decision. The problem is that some judges (lookin’ at you Alito and Thomas) have behaved in a manner that leads to questions about their impartiality. They appear to have a dog in the fight in a very concrete way, involving money, gifts, flags, close family members…still not a deal breaker unless they refuse to recuse themselves. That they are refusing, lends credence to the belief that they are either being bought and paid for, or are driven by ideology instead of law.
I did do a little looking up, and from what I could find, the liberal judges have voted as a bloc 80% of the time, the conservatives 70% of the time. So although more often, I wouldn’t say far more often. A difference of 10%, while significant, isn’t big enough to say one side does it, but the other doesn’t. And really, it makes sense: in its current configuration there are far fewer liberals than conservatives. The more people in a group, the likelier it is they would have divergent opinions. Also, recently liberals have been playing defense, as it were, again making it likely they would stick together.
It was unprofessional of Ginsberg to say that, sure. But as far as I know, she wasn’t basically being enriched by lavish gifts from millionaires who have an anti-Trump agenda, so in the who-seems-more-biased sweepstakes, Alito and Thomas still win.
We need more justices appointed to our Supreme Court ASAP. In the 1860’s, america’s population was 35 million. We had 9 justices. Our population is now 350 million. We need at least three more so America can be better represented by folks who support the majority of Americans rather than dark money. ❤️🤍💙🇺🇸
SC justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. SC justices are not appointed to represent anyone, rather they are appointed to uphold our Constitution.
I agree! We need more nominated and confirmed to uphold the constitution. They are not in place to take bribes or support those that lobby or bribe them. Call it what you want, however they should work for the people, not their religion or their own values or those that groom them and give them gifts and free undisclosed vacations.
Hi Jill I’am seeing a road map I don’t like so I’m wondering where you are going? It has been a while but in the seventh grade I learned about the start of our government, and the way it was presented to me is not the way that you want it to go.
Please explain what you mean….
Jill The way I remember it, the government has 3 branches. Legislative, Executive and Judicial. This link goes into more detail than I knew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States
Click on the Judicial branch to the left and it will take you to an Overview of the federal judiciary.
The why it was explained to me, the Supreme Court of the U.S was like an Umpire at a ball game. They called the strikes, the balls, the outs, they had the final say on the rules of the game. How about them Yankee’s, perhaps if they don’t like losing should they get new or more Umps?
You write “We need at least three more so America can be better represented by folks who support the majority of Americans” that may be what you wish them to do, but that is not their function.
Perhaps someone should explain your thoughts on the Court as umpire to Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society.
They advised Trump on the nominations of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. And before that, Leo helped pick the court’s three other conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. And somehow, just somehow, the Court is now issuing mostly conservative opinions, overturning precedent, just as Leo and the Federalist Society wished them to do.
Looks to me, and many others, like the Court’s ball field got stacked with six umps that tend to call strikes for liberal batters and balls for conservative ones.
Exactly…. And now they’re vying to tear down our wall between church and state.
Bob are you in favor of “packing” the Supreme Court of the U.S with judges until the wished for opinion, is given? Because that’s the road jill is mapping out.
My reply to you dealt with your position that Supreme Court justices should be like baseball's umpires -- unbiased arbiters of the rules of the game. It didn't deal with adding additional justices to the current nine.
I gave an example of how a conservative organization recommended conservative candidates to conservative presidents, the latest being Trump's vow to end Roe v. Wade. Which the Court did, despite the supposed affirmations by its new members of respecting precedent.
The above gives lie to your notion of Court justices acting as umpires.
(By the way, know any umpires who take hundreds of thousands of dollars in "gifts" from one team owner, then umpires the games in which the owner's team is playing? Or an umpire who flies the flag of a particular team at both his residence and his vacation home? Ah, yes, just calling balls and strikes....)
So, if you really believe that Court justices should act as unbiased umpires, then the selection of Court candidates in order to achieve a particular predetermined political outcome, like, say, overturning Roe v. Wade, should be anathema to you. Right?
Monied interest always win. The people, well, we're doomed.
It seems like that more and more.
Activist “conservative” Justices are working to dismantle necessary government institutions such as Richard Nixon’s EPA.
I disagree with your statement. It appears that, at least ion this matter, the SC is stating that the EPA needs to better do its job.
Below is information that (along with the source) link that provides a more accurate explanation of the SC decision:
"The Supreme Court granted the applications for a stay, halting enforcement of the EPA’s rule against the applicants pending the disposition of the applicants’ petition for review in the D.C. Circuit and any petition for writ of certiorari, timely sought. The Court found that the applicants were likely to prevail on their claim that the EPA’s action was arbitrary or capricious because the agency failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made, and ignored an important aspect of the problem. The EPA’s alternative arguments were unavailing.
Annotation
PRIMARY HOLDING
When the EPA offered no reasoned response to legitimate concerns posed during the comment period for a rule, this likely indicated that the EPA’s final rule was not reasonably explained."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/603/23a349/
And 4 justices disagreed, including Coney Barrett.
But my comment was not limited to this one ruling.
Yes, the dissenters believed that the EPA did not have to reasonably explain its position.
You are misrepresenting what the dissenters said.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-blocks-epas-good-neighbor-air-pollution-rule/#:~:text=Justice%2520Amy%2520Coney%2520Barrett%2520penned,to%2520succeed%2520on%2520the%2520merits.%E2%80%9D
No, not true.
From your link:
"The Supreme Court on Thursday temporarily blocked a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce air pollution from power plants and other industrial facilities in 23 states. By a vote of 5-4, the justices granted a request from three states, as well as several companies and trade associations affected by the rule, to put the rule on hold while a challenge to it continues in a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.
Given the considerations on both sides of the debate, Gorsuch continued, the key question in deciding whether to put the plan on hold temporarily is whether the challengers are ultimately likely to prevail on their argument that the plan is flawed. Here, Gorsuch reasoned, the scale tips in favor of the challengers, because the EPA did not explain why the emissions-control measures required by the plan – which were based on the assumption that the plan would apply to all 23 states – should still apply even if (as eventually happened) fewer states remained in the plan."
This is what happens because I read balanced information and not one-sided propaganda. If you kept reading you would find the pertinent response:
“ Justice Amy Coney Barrett penned a dissent that was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She criticized the majority for blocking enforcement of the EPA’s plan “based on an underdeveloped theory that is unlikely to succeed on the merits.” Although skeptical about whether, for procedural reasons, the challengers could even bring their lawsuit, she contended that the EPA had provided a sufficient explanation for the plan to survive. “EPA,” she wrote, “would have promulgated the same plan even if fewer States were covered.”
But more broadly, Barrett complained, “the Court’s injunction leaves large swaths of upwind States free to keep contributing significantly to their downwind neighbors’ ozone problems for the next several years.” And the court “justifies this decision based on an alleged procedural error that likely had no impact on the plan.”
It just got worse Ken. They overruled the Chevron Deference. Now courts, not scientists, can decide pollution limits.
Oh my!
Would not the courts base their decisions, in part, on scientific evidence???
The impact of "acid rain" was real. I guess polluters just don't care about anything except $. God forbid they use ingenuity to come up with cost effective ways to decrease the pollution. Makes me wonder if OSHA will lose "teeth" like the EPA.
OSHA has already lost "teeth" - remember during djt's term & the relaxing(to put it mildly) of any impact OSHA was allowed to have in regard to the meat-packing plants?
I worked for a construction management firm for years (20 years ago) and we had to have a safety guy who covered all our jobsites to make sure we were up to snuff with OSHA and OSHA definitely had teeth back then.
Alas
Devestating decision. I'm a native 'Dacker and know first hand, as many do, what it was like to have a local lake or pond become crystal clear, but devoid of life. I can't fathom the insanity we are living through these days..... And last night's debate was a frightening reminder of how bad our choices are for the next election.
Devastating?? Not really.
Below is information that (along with the source) link that provides a more accurate explanation of the SC decision:
"The Supreme Court granted the applications for a stay, halting enforcement of the EPA’s rule against the applicants pending the disposition of the applicants’ petition for review in the D.C. Circuit and any petition for writ of certiorari, timely sought. The Court found that the applicants were likely to prevail on their claim that the EPA’s action was arbitrary or capricious because the agency failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made, and ignored an important aspect of the problem. The EPA’s alternative arguments were unavailing.
Annotation
PRIMARY HOLDING
When the EPA offered no reasoned response to legitimate concerns posed during the comment period for a rule, this likely indicated that the EPA’s final rule was
Ken,
You wrote the following:
"By a 5-4 vote on Thursday, the Supreme Court blocked the requirement that factories and power plants in the Midwest cut air pollution that drifts into the Eastern states because it believes that agencies such as the EPA don't have that type of authority."
I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion or what source of information you used, but it seems that you may not be stating correctly the SC decision in this matter.
Below is information that (along with the source) link that provides a more accurate explanation of the SC decision:
"The Supreme Court granted the applications for a stay, halting enforcement of the EPA’s rule against the applicants pending the disposition of the applicants’ petition for review in the D.C. Circuit and any petition for writ of certiorari, timely sought. The Court found that the applicants were likely to prevail on their claim that the EPA’s action was arbitrary or capricious because the agency failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made, and ignored an important aspect of the problem. The EPA’s alternative arguments were unavailing.
Annotation
PRIMARY HOLDING
When the EPA offered no reasoned response to legitimate concerns posed during the comment period for a rule, this likely indicated that the EPA’s final rule was not reasonably explained."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/603/23a349/
I echo your disappointment Ken, regarding the Supreme Court's finding agains the "Good Neighbor" EPA policy that largely helped to reduce acid rain in our beloved Adirondack Lakes. A few current residents of our area still around that I know worked legislatively on the original EPA policy in the early '90's, putting in a great deal of effort and research to get it through. Thought it was over and done with. Now, 30+ years later with our lakes much the better due to the policy, they are once again in peril. I just hope the increase in green energy sources and reduction in Midwest coal burning plants since the '90's could be on positive. Perhaps Congress can pass legislation giving the EPA this specific authority. Not sure if that's even plausible with the current Congress., ie. the environmental apathy our own Rep. Stefanik harbors even towards her own Adirondack Park.
The SC DID NOT FIND AGAINST IT.
Below is information that (along with the source) link that provides a more accurate explanation of the SC decision:
"The Supreme Court granted the applications for a stay, halting enforcement of the EPA’s rule against the applicants pending the disposition of the applicants’ petition for review in the D.C. Circuit and any petition for writ of certiorari, timely sought. The Court found that the applicants were likely to prevail on their claim that the EPA’s action was arbitrary or capricious because the agency failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made, and ignored an important aspect of the problem. The EPA’s alternative arguments were unavailing.
Annotation
PRIMARY HOLDING
When the EPA offered no reasoned response to legitimate concerns posed during the comment period for a rule, this likely indicated that the EPA’s final rule was not reasonably explained."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/603/23a349/
I share your concerns and hope green energy ultimately corrects the problem.
Ken wrote: “By a 5-4 vote on Thursday, the Supreme Court blocked the requirement that factories and power plants in the Midwest cut air pollution that drifts into the Eastern states because it believes that agencies such as the EPA don't have that type of authority. // This was the third ruling against the EPA in recent years. Previously, the court had limited its authority to address climate change and water pollution.”
And today, the Court issued a fourth ruling that will reduce the authority of executive agencies and further imperil our environment. In that ruling on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451, and Relentless v. Department of Commerce, No. 22-1219, the Court overruled a longstanding legal precedent that afforded deference to federal agencies in carrying out legislation passed by Congress.
It is a bad day for people today.
Yes the Green Mountains, the hills green forever. Adirondacks due north and Green Mountins just east.After three years in CA. I really missed fall again in 1991. Not a fan of my first winter back in NY. Thought I'd freeze to death. Stumbled got married and stayed. Yeah I occasionally still at 55 shovel w a sweatshirt or just a long sleeved shirt and boots.
Yeah its warmer too.
But those high talking scientists are no match for Stefanik and her bullshit tongued Trump Daddy.
The future?
Joe's not a promising bet.
Trump sadly might be in office again. The rest of the globes at a low boil...
Might be time to pray folks.
Pretty sad the country we live in is really a mess.
People really that scared of a
Woman President...or a black woman??
Won't have to worry about praying. If Oklahoma and Louisiana are any indications it will be federal law pretty soon.
Now that Joe's performance is out there this seems a little more relevant?
Yes seems this way..
Yes, Phil, "some" people really are that scared!
I’m well aware of our three branches of government. They were put in place by our forefathers as checks and balances of one another. Our democracy is “of the people, by the people and for the people.” It is understood that the majority rules and the minority is protected, not the other way around. ❤️🤍💙🇺🇸
The supreme court is stacked to the “conservative” side right now. I have it in quotes because these don’t seem to be your grandpa’s conservatives. The court has always swung back and forth from liberal to conservative, as it naturally would depending on which president nominated the justices. What is different these days is what passes for conservative. In the past, whether liberal or conservative, I think most, if not quite all, the justices had a sense that the job was bigger than they were; their decisions would be shaping the way the nation grew, so they better get it right.
The ethics of being a judge require one to be impartial, and more importantly, to recognize when impartiality might be difficult, or even just have the appearance of being difficult. Then their obligation is to either recuse themselves or to proceed with extra, self aware caution. There are conservative judges on the court today that absolutely give the appearance of being biased and partial to one side. To use the sports analogy, if the umpire is a die hard Yankee fan, and the owner of the Yankees is taking them on vacations and paying for homes and their relative’s tuition, then every time they call a strike on the other team, well then yeah, people are going to question their impartiality. And if those calls seem particularly egregious, like the bump stock decision was, for instance, the questioning turns into outright distrust. Some of the conservative judges on the court today don’t seem to care anymore whether or not the public trusts them. They’re there for life if they so choose, and they plan to make the most of it. There was never anything keeping Supreme Court justices honest except their own sense of honor, and if that is missing we will see the results we are seeing now.
Yes, often the liberals vote as a bloc, but so do the conservatives. This latest batch of decisions in recent days has had some surprising combinations, though. But it is not a problem, for me at least, that liberal judges and conservative judges see things differently. I would prefer judges be nominated and confirmed who are more centrist in their personal beliefs, but as we say in Kindergarten, you get what you get and you don’t throw a fit. As long as they keep open minds, we should be able to muddle through, even if we don’t like every decision. The problem is that some judges (lookin’ at you Alito and Thomas) have behaved in a manner that leads to questions about their impartiality. They appear to have a dog in the fight in a very concrete way, involving money, gifts, flags, close family members…still not a deal breaker unless they refuse to recuse themselves. That they are refusing, lends credence to the belief that they are either being bought and paid for, or are driven by ideology instead of law.
I did do a little looking up, and from what I could find, the liberal judges have voted as a bloc 80% of the time, the conservatives 70% of the time. So although more often, I wouldn’t say far more often. A difference of 10%, while significant, isn’t big enough to say one side does it, but the other doesn’t. And really, it makes sense: in its current configuration there are far fewer liberals than conservatives. The more people in a group, the likelier it is they would have divergent opinions. Also, recently liberals have been playing defense, as it were, again making it likely they would stick together.
It was unprofessional of Ginsberg to say that, sure. But as far as I know, she wasn’t basically being enriched by lavish gifts from millionaires who have an anti-Trump agenda, so in the who-seems-more-biased sweepstakes, Alito and Thomas still win.