There’s should be a rule for using the word cum multiple times in a post. 
2 Likes
LOL that you included your pro-choice (gender) stance.
A+ because I was hoping you would not so I could add it.
My wife’s lefty friend were having their meltdown about it at our house and I just sat there not saying a thing, at least until one of them said, “when this starts affecting men because they have to support these children the laws will change quick”. That’s when I tossed in, “But this is the year that men starting being able to get pregnant so it’s already affecting men directly”. Then before my wife could light me on fire with “that look” I dove down and swam underwater to the other end of the pool and started talking with some other people. 
I literally became that Skeletor “until we meet again meme”.
7 Likes
Nice.
Also. Uh…
How many of these liberal infeated pool parties do you have?
I hear libwrals are offended by upside-down pineapples…
imho i think you should get a divorce based on her friends. full custody to you.
1 Like
Lee Zeldin won the NY Republican primary for governor, so thanks to this ruling he’s pretty much guaranteed to lose to Hochul.
how bad does it have to get before these people vote red in NY?
NY’ers on their way to the polls in 2028 to vote for another democrat.
2 Likes
OMG… sizzlin’
i had to save that one in my special file of spiciness.
okay what is this one now?
The EPA case is HUGE. Just finished reading the full decision. The court weighed heavily on the “major questions doctrine” in this decision, which was the worst case scenario if you’re a fan of legislating through unelected bureaucracies.
Direct copy paste from the ruling: This is a major questions case. EPA claimed to discover an unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority in the vague language of a long-extant, but rarely used, statute designed as a gap filler.
Also a direct copy paste: Nor can the Court ignore that the regulatory writ EPA newly uncovered in Section 111(d) conveniently enabled it to enact a program, namely, cap-and-trade for carbon, that Congress had already considered and rejected numerous times. The importance of the policy issue and ongoing debate over its merits “makes the oblique form of the claimed delegation all the more suspect.”
So the court just granted big time muscle to the major questions doctrine. They SPECIFICALLY point out how the EPA was used to pass something congress had tried and failed to do. Should be interesting to see how long it takes before the CDC ends up in court with their covid mandates. My guess is before the end of July.
Anyone interested in reading it, check out Bing’s PDF link above. Robert’s wrote it and like his other decisions this is a pretty straightforward read. Nothing like a Scalia opinion where I needed to clear my head for an hour and find a quiet corner surrounded by books just get prepared to chew through his legal prose. My favorite jurist of the modern court, but my god that man loved to flex his mastery of law and the english language in his decisions.
1 Like
Read through this quickly but this will directly have ramifications for other entities such as the Dep of Ed right?
This gives people the power to challenge any regulation coming down from an agency where congress did not SPECIFICALLY grant the agency that power.
The FDA is rife with political overreach when you look through the lens of this decision.
2 Likes
so this was the state of West Virginai v EPA.
was it a state that advanced the case that struct down Roe?
to my earlier question about why is this happening, is it that there are constitutionist lawyers at the state level that are advnacing cases that are strategic in their ability to re-constitutionalize political landscape?
counter-lawfare… as it were?
Dobbs v. Jackson, the abortion ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, was a direct challenge to Mississippi’s 15 week abortion ban. Mississippi passed the Gestational Age Act in 2018 and this has been working its way through the lower courts since 1 day after its passage into law, so no, this is not some recent push.
West Virginia v. EPA goes back to the Clean Power Plan pushed by the Obama EPA in 2014. The Supreme Court put a stay on that in 2016, then Trump was elected and the CPP was dropped. The whole thing went quiet until Biden got elected and repealed Trump’s basically toothless Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rules and signaled that the EPA would again be coming up with a replacement for the CPP. What was interesting is they never even go that far, and a large portion of the decision discusses why Virginia had standing to bring the case despite the EPA not enacting a specific replacement for the CPP. So again, no, this isn’t something that just sprung up.
NYSRPA v. Bruen, the NY concealed carry case, started in 2018 when it was brought in the Northern District of NY and dismissed. Appealed to the 2nd Circuit in NY in 2019 and that dismissal was affirmed. The challenge was brought to the Supreme Court and they agreed to hear the case in 2021. Again, not something that just started.
The answer to, “Why is this all happening now” is pretty simple. Trump and McConnell completely overhauled our court system. Trump and McConnell have selected 1 in every 4 federal judges. I know it’s fun now to rip on McConnell but that’s a legacy of conservatism that will definitely put him in the history books. They also replaced 1/3rd of the Supreme Court. It’s unlikely the Supreme Court would have even agreed to hear Dobbs, Virginia or Bruen under its prior makeup and instead of would let the lower court decisions stand.
2 Likes
thank you for all that
People really don’t appreciate the impact all these judges will have. These are all lifetime appointments. Presidents will come and go but when a president picks 3 replacements for the Supreme Court, replacing one (RBG) which was picked by the opposing party as well as 1 of every 4 federal judges that’s a legacy that will stand for a LOOOONG time.
Reminds me of my favorite line from House of Cards…
“Money is the Mc-mansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after 10 years. Power is the old stone building that stands for centuries. I cannot respect someone who doesn’t see the difference.”
Except instead of money vs power it’s the office of the president vs the judges they appoint. Presidents come and go every 4-8 years, but if a president can massively alter the makeup of the judiciary that’s a change that will truly last.
2 Likes