Supreme Court deals Biden climate agenda serious blow with EPA decision

republican plan to crash the world, that will reduce climate change, so who needs the EPA, the end times are near, in their God they trust

 

Good stuff, nicely presented! A breath of fresh air here, pun intended

 

The system was never intended to have a filibuster.

It also wasn’t intended to survive a political party manipulating the system to favor their party over the country.

 

Step one: abolish the filibuster
Step two: pass the VRA
Step three: implement the Wyoming rule
Step four: ethics rules for SCOTUS, impeach thomas for his rulings around his wife’s activities

Then we can see what consensus says

 

The system was not designed to have one representative be able to block the presidents nomination. That y’all did this for a year to see how the people voted and then rushed one through weeks before you were to be ejected show this is party over country.

You aren’t fooling anyone that doesn’t want to be fooled

 

The DNC has broken new boundaries! We can now put mentally compromised people in places like the Presidency..

How many times have we read "I'd have voted <Insert wierd animals, inanimate object here> to just get rid of Trump". Wow the hypocrisy has no bounds today

 

lol.. so petty little tyranting is still in your model. Got it. So you weren't actually serious. Got it. I have no idea what the VRA is... You want to take power from places you don't like, that seems disingenuous. And you want to attack a thought leader you disagree with. Hmm. Who does Elena Kegan sleep with again?

 

I want the people in this nation to have a voice and I want our public servants to have a basic level of ethics.

I am sure this is very confusing

The filibuster is not in the constitution and the Wyoming rule would restore the purpose of the House. Why do you have the people having a voice?

 

Hmm... The will of the Senate isn't "one representative". We've seen what Biden nominated. The horror of her tenure will be a legacy of mediocre ideological puss bomb. ACB is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise dank dark pool of let's be honest femnaziism.

 

What was the final vote for Garland in the Senate?

 

Cool. So when can we expect you to go after folks like Diane Feinstein? Nancy Pelosi? Adam Schiff? Chuck Schumer? You say you want these things you just never ever seem to apply them to your own team. Perhaps if you could be more consistent...

 

Gosh, let's see... As Harry wanted, the majority of the Senate. Is that now what was supposed to happen? How many votes did ms Ketanji get? Some might say that virtue signaling isn't a democrats' only kind of thing these days, but it turns out that her vote produced a margin of... three. And if it hadn't and Kamala Too was the deciding vote, would you still cheer for that?

 

Let's start suing CA for their pollution. It is high time Wyoming didn't have to suffer from their abuses...

 

I have said all of them should be removed, especially Pelosi when she pushed back against congressional insider trading laws. What are you even talking about?

If you were going to accuse someone of being inconsistent at least have the integrity to be familiar with what they have said.

 

I am asking for the exact count.

Brown was elected by a 53 - 44 bipartisan majority.

Now answer the question, what was the final vote for Garland?

 

Au contraire.

". . . The tactic of using long speeches to delay action on legislation appeared in the very first session of the Senate. On September 22, 1789, Pennsylvania Senator William Maclay wrote in his diary that the “design of the Virginians . . . was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.” As the number of filibusters grew in the 19th century, the Senate had no formal process to allow a majority to end debate and force a vote on legislation or nominations. . . ."
U.S. Senate: About Filibusters and Cloture | Historical Overview
https://www.senate.gov › about › powers-procedures

The earliest filibusters also led to the first demands for what we now call “cloture,” a method for ending debate and bringing a question to a vote.

 

The system was designed by the constitution
The filibuster was implemented as a talking filibuster, it has morphed into the current version that is no longer about debate but just preventing the bill from passing.

Bring back the talking filibuster if one is needed but the one we currently have is corrupt

 

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture/overview.htm
Historically, it originally wasn't called a filibuster, but the tactic was used since the beginning of the Senate. And each party will do exactly whatever they have the votes to do and get away with. Dems have shown they are no better than Reps, and vice versa. I realize you always seem to have an excuse in your mind for why those who favor your positions aren't as bad, but that's just not correct. We haven't had any true Statesmen (States-People)? in quite some time. But our nation has survived worse.

 

No one favors my positions. I would fire just about all of them.

 

The current form of the filibuster was adopted as a reform to permit other business to go forward.

 

And that’s the problem, there is no penalty for refusing to advance legislation or for refusing to push legislation that is grossly unpopular. It just disappears.

This allows politicians to do nothing which is what one side desires.

 

Both sides have used it.

 

Both sides are corrupt, I have never said otherwise
Only one side though is elected with the desire to allow almost nothing to progress

 

Delete

 

It seems like all the supreme Court really said here is that the EPA is not the supreme emperor of the country.

The EPA is attempting to destroy several industries, industries that we depend on.

I don't think this is going to be overruled until we become the subjects of the EPA.

Why would anybody support being an absolute subject of an unelected agency? Any supreme Court that besides that should have jurisdiction stripping