# US Supreme Court rules against EPA in West Virginia vs EPA



## SScorpio (Jun 30, 2022)

This may seem minor, but it can open the door to many other challenges. A quick break down is that there is no constitutional power for Congress to delegate its power to un-elected federal agencies.

This means EPA regulations and the like would need to go through Congress and be approved by a vote, versus the EPA coming up with standard and implementing them without any type of vote.


https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ho...uld-hobble-bidens-climate-efforts-2022-06-28/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 1, 2022)

Great, so in other words, Republican's can filibuster anything that get's into the senate, and kill it on the spot. Perfect for something where we need something done essentially now for us not to live in a climate change hellhole.

Just keeps making the court look even more illegitimate.


----------



## SScorpio (Jul 1, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Great, so in other words, Republican's can filibuster anything that get's into the senate, and kill it on the spot. Perfect for something where we need something done essentially now for us not to live in a climate change hellhole.
> 
> Just keeps making the court look even more illegitimate.


I guess that's one way to look at it, here's another.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 1, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> I guess that's one way to look at it, here's another.


What comes first? people? or what was written down on a piece of paper? Because right now, with that argument, your saying that the paper and it's logic comes first. Not the people. Striking down the EPA only hurts the people.


----------



## SScorpio (Jul 1, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> What comes first? people? or what was written down on a piece of paper? Because right now, with that argument, your saying that the paper and it's logic comes first. Not the people. Striking down the EPA only hurts the people.


Did you see what the complaint against the EPA was? The concern is that they were trying to enforce sweeping laws without taking into account the economic impact which also hurts everyone including you and me in our wallets, layoffs for other people, etc.

If legislation can't be passed in Congress, then maybe it isn't good. Their entire job is striking deals, not being able to get everything they want whenever they want.

Trump struck down the climate EO when he got into office. The US still met the demands without it being law. If you educate and get people to care and act, you can get your way if you actually have a good argument.


----------



## Veho (Jul 1, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> The concern is that they were trying to enforce sweeping laws without taking into account the economic impact which also hurts everyone including you and me in our wallets, layoffs for other people, etc.


The same argument can (and has) been made for lead paint and asbestos.


----------



## orangy57 (Jul 1, 2022)

remember when caring about environmental stuff was a bipartisan normal person issue and NIXON made the EPA in the 70s?

also how is the supreme court burning thru like 10 cases a week now ruth bader ginsburg rlly dropped the ball by not retiring before she became a withered skeleton


----------



## SScorpio (Jul 1, 2022)

Veho said:


> The same argument can (and has) been made for lead paint and asbestos.


Sure, and if you see the rest of my comment about educating people you can create change. Look at people seeing fat as bad an going all in on sugar. Get caring about it and they demand their Congress representatives fight for change.



orangy57 said:


> remember when caring about environmental stuff was a bipartisan normal person issue and NIXON made the EPA in the 70s?
> 
> also how is the supreme court burning thru like 10 cases a week now ruth bader ginsburg rlly dropped the ball by not retiring before she became a withered skeleton


Being a conservationist is not a bad thing. Yet when I go out in nature I'm picking up after myself, yet people who care so much leave litter everywhere. See the recent pictures of the climate event Gretta was at? After words, trash everywhere. Those young people care oh so much.

This last week seems like it ramped up, but that's just because it's the end of a term. It happens every single time. It's just that this year there was Roe v Wade which brought a ton of media attention. In other years West Virginia v EPA, the New York carry permit decision, etc would have happened with the vast majority of people having a talking head mention it once in the evening news and life then goes on.


----------



## Kraken_X (Jul 1, 2022)

I know a lot of people have been brainwashed into thinking regulation is bad, but these regulatory agencies are the most important part of government.  They exist to keep us safe.  I know sometimes they don't do the best job at that due to lack of funding, regulatory capture and interference from a corrupt congress, but they are a million times better than nothing.  Saying that they can't do anything beyond what the law explicitly states is akin to shutting them down because the law wasn't written with this restriction in place, and writing a new law that just describes everything every agency already does would be tens of thousands of pages.  Plus there would be no flexibility if situations and needs change.  

These agencies ensure that our drinking water and food won't make us sick.  That the water supply isn't contaminated before it's used for farming.  That our electronics don't explode in our faces and start fires.  That buildings and bridges won't collapse.  Now all of that has been gutted and corporations are free to cut as many corners as they want, and it's on us as consumers to figure out what is dangerous and what isn't on our own.  You already waived your rights to legal recourse in the 60+ page EULA you didn't read, so these agencies were the only things left to protect us. 

And no, the "free market" alone can't protect us.  Nobody has time to read reviews of every product to ensure its safe, and in the case of food, to read those reviews every time a new batch is made that could be contaminated.  We also know how easy it is to fake or entice good reviews.  Boycotts only work if everyone does it, and word of mouth alone won't reach critical mass, plus we can't boycott companies that only sell to other businesses.


----------



## SScorpio (Jul 1, 2022)

Kraken_X said:


> I know a lot of people have been brainwashed into thinking regulation is bad, but these regulatory agencies are the most important part of government.  They exist to keep us safe.  I know sometimes they don't do the best job at that due to lack of funding, regulatory capture and interference from a corrupt congress, but they are a million times better than nothing.  Saying that they can't do anything beyond what the law explicitly states is akin to shutting them down because the law wasn't written with this restriction in place, and writing a new law that just describes everything every agency already does would be tens of thousands of pages.  Plus there would be no flexibility if situations and needs change.
> 
> These agencies ensure that our drinking water and food won't make us sick.  That the water supply isn't contaminated before it's used for farming.  That our electronics don't explode in our faces and start fires.  That buildings and bridges won't collapse.  Now all of that has been gutted and corporations are free to cut as many corners as they want, and it's on us as consumers to figure out what is dangerous and what isn't on our own.  You already waived your rights to legal recourse in the 60+ page EULA you didn't read, so these agencies were the only things left to protect us.
> 
> And no, the "free market" alone can't protect us.  Nobody has time to read reviews of every product to ensure its safe, and in the case of food, to read those reviews every time a new batch is made that could be contaminated.  We also know how easy it is to fake or entice good reviews.  Boycotts only work if everyone does it, and word of mouth alone won't reach critical mass, plus we can't boycott companies that only sell to other businesses.


And those agencies have been failing us before they were gutted. Look at the opioid epidemic, the US's failed nutritional system pushing us towards foods that are unhealthy for us.

We have the EPA holding up public works projects for years for environmental impact studies. All the while infrastructure crumbles around us.

The agencies can continue doing their jobs, but they can't create new legislation and enforce it. Those needs to pass through Congress.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 1, 2022)

Next up they're gonna rule that state legislatures can override the will of the people in elections.  Hot on the heels of Thomas stating he believes COVID-19 vaccines are made from aborted fetuses.  I knew it was only a matter of time until dipshits brought fascism to this country, I just didn't think it would be dropped on our heads all at once.


----------



## Kraken_X (Jul 1, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> And those agencies have been failing us before they were gutted. Look at the opioid epidemic, the US's failed nutritional system pushing us towards foods that are unhealthy for us.
> 
> We have the EPA holding up public works projects for years for environmental impact studies. All the while infrastructure crumbles around us.
> 
> The agencies can continue doing their jobs, but they can't create new legislation and enforce it. Those needs to pass through Congress.


So your argument is that since these agencies weren't doing a perfect job they shouldn't be able to do anything at all?

The legislation to improve these agencies will never pass.  The republican party is quite open about being anti-regulation and democrats can't pass it without them.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 1, 2022)

Kraken_X said:


> So your argument is that since these agencies weren't doing a perfect job they shouldn't be able to do anything at all?
> 
> The legislation to improve these agencies will never pass.  The republican party is quite open about being anti-regulation and democrats can't pass it without them.


It's also worth noting these agencies have been sabotaged by republicans for decades.  They're severely underfunded.  Even the IRS, which you would think would have a ton of resources, can only really afford to audit the poor.  By design, of course.


----------



## SScorpio (Jul 1, 2022)

Kraken_X said:


> So your argument is that since these agencies weren't doing a perfect job they shouldn't be able to do anything at all?


My argument is those agencies are bloated, failing to do what they are intended to do, and trying to force the will whoever has the most money to influence them rather than doing the will of the people.

Have you never seen the revolving door of people in charge of these agencies leaving and getting kushy high playing jobs in the private sector?

And where did I say they couldn't do anything? They can continue doing the jobs they were created to do, testing things for safety. Prosecuting polluters, etc. But not expanding their power and pushing for rich people's agendas.


----------



## Kraken_X (Jul 1, 2022)

Congress already had the authority to make improvements to these agencies and they didn't.  What makes you think that they will now?

Regulatory capture is a problem for sure, but congress also has a bribe > congressman > lobbyist pipeline too.


----------



## SScorpio (Jul 1, 2022)

Kraken_X said:


> Congress already had the authority to make improvements to these agencies and they didn't.  What makes you think that they will now?
> 
> Regulatory capture is a problem for sure, but congress also has a bribe > congressman > lobbyist pipeline too.


I have no idea if they will or won't. But hopefully more people get involved in politics and start demanding and voting for change.

Start voting out the people who have been in office for 50 years, and start voting in people who want to change things. Congress are representatives of their constituents, start reminding them they aren't elites over the rest of the country.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 1, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> Start voting out the people who have been in office for 50 years, and start voting in people who want to change things. Congress are representatives of their constituents, start reminding them they aren't elites over the rest of the country.


As I mentioned time and time sgain. The Republican party voted against the removal of gerrymandering. Meaning that a majority of people can "vote them out" but fail becsuse how heavily gerrymandered the state is.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 1, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Next up they're gonna rule that state legislatures can override the will of the people in elections.  Hot on the heels of Thomas stating he believes COVID-19 vaccines are made from aborted fetuses.  I knew it was only a matter of time until dipshits brought fascism to this country, I just didn't think it would be dropped on our heads all at once.


He didn't say they are made from aborted fetuses, but that fetal cell lines were used during development which is true.


----------



## Dakitten (Jul 2, 2022)

Glyptofane said:


> He didn't say they are made from aborted fetuses, but that fetal cell lines were used during development which is true.


Half true, completely ignorant
But its okay, not like you have to be a well informed individual to be on the SUPREME COURT or anything. Fake it 'til ya make it, baybee!


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Next up they're gonna rule that state legislatures can override the will of the people in elections.  Hot on the heels of Thomas stating he believes COVID-19 vaccines are made from aborted fetuses.  I knew it was only a matter of time until dipshits brought fascism to this country, I just didn't think it would be dropped on our heads all at once.


You should read the Constitution. It states that that state legislatures have complete domain over elections.

Imagine thinking that issues going back to the states to be voted on by the representatives of the people as being fascism. You people look more foolish every time you use the f word, so by all means, continue to use it.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> You should read the Constitution. It states that that state legislatures have complete domain over elections.
> 
> Imagine thinking that issues going back to the states to be voted on by the representatives of the people as being fascism. You people look more foolish every time you use the f word, so by all means, continue to use it.


Imagine being so braindead that you believe the intent of the constitution was to allow only governors to have a meaningful vote in electing federal representatives.  Worse, you also believe they should be allowed unlimited corruption and the ability to maintain power indefinitely by redrawing their own districts.

Tribalism is a helluva drug.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Imagine being so braindead that you believe the intent of the constitution was to allow only governors to have a meaningful vote in electing federal representatives.  Worse, you also believe they should be allowed unlimited corruption and the ability to maintain power indefinitely by redrawing their own districts.
> 
> Tribalism is a helluva drug.


I never said anything about governors. Learn.to.read. I specifically talked about state legislatures. Do you honestly think there isn't unlimited corruption in the federal government? You people really despise decentralized power. That's why it's so funny when you call other people fascists or authoritarian while at the same time, advocating for the federal government to seize all power. Once again, read the Constitution.

Whatever you are on is a helluva drug.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I never said anything about governors. Learn.to.read. I specifically talked about state legislatures.


Which are, in many states, a uniparty affair, with the governor being of the same party.  Your suggestion that we empower any small group of people to override the votes of an entire state is not just moronic, it's also malicious, and I think you fucking know that.



TraderPatTX said:


> Do you honestly think there isn't unlimited corruption in the federal government?


There is quite a bit, which is why you don't want to remove any more checks on federal representatives' power and tenure.  Duh.



TraderPatTX said:


> You people really despise decentralized power.


"Decentralized power" is the exact opposite of what you're arguing for, this shouldn't need explaining.



TraderPatTX said:


> That's why it's so funny when you call other people fascists or authoritarian while at the same time, advocating for the federal government to seize all power. Once again, read the Constitution.


What the fuck are you even talking about?  The case before SCROTUS concerns the states' courts ability to veto or override district maps that are (obviously) meant for partisan gerrymandering.  It has nothing to do with the federal government.



TraderPatTX said:


> Whatever you are on is a helluva drug.


It's some pretty good weed, yet I still have much greater clarity of mind than you on this topic.  You're afraid republicans are losing relevance in the modern world, so you think it's best to allow them to cheat to win and maintain power forever.  Sound about right?  Again you're on the wrong side of history, real Americans won't tolerate a small group of rich old fucks declaring themselves king of each state.


----------



## SScorpio (Jul 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Which are, in many states, a uniparty affair, with the governor being of the same party.  Your suggestion that we empower any small group of people to override the votes of an entire state is not just moronic, it's also malicious, and I think you fucking know that.


I'm not aware of any states that use any electoral college style system in their state government elections. So the governor is a simple majority vote, and state house/senate are majorities in their districts. So a uniparty would just reflect the will of the people in that state.



Xzi said:


> There is quite a bit, which is why you don't want to remove any more checks on federal representatives' power and tenure.  Duh.


What checks on the power and tenure for federal representatives are there? Federal house/senate is in extreme need of term limits, people being in power for 50 years is why nothing ever gets fixed. Just promise solutions every election while doing nothing because if it's solved you lose your platform.



Xzi said:


> "Decentralized power" is the exact opposite of what you're arguing for, this shouldn't need explaining.
> Everything wrong with the Texas Republican Party Platform


You may want to do some reading on governmental systems from actual books instead of blogs by people that are "against all the fascists" and propose to institute fascism to stop all those evil fascists. Putting power into the hands of the states breaks up who controls what area. But earlier you were arguing for a fascist small one world government. So I'm not sure that you are clearly understanding the topic.

The US isn't a democracy, it's a representative based democratic republic. As you're researching governments, look up how the old cities states were governed. It's not a one to one comparison, but the idea was to have the states be their own things with the Federal government being a mediator between the states. That was eroded over time with attempts to centralize the government and for the Feds to seize power they don't have.



Xzi said:


> What the fuck are you even talking about?  The case before SCROTUS concerns the states' courts ability to veto or override district maps that are (obviously) meant for partisan gerrymandering.  It has nothing to do with the federal government.


Could you go into this? You only dropped this into the thread and without links or actually explaining the point you are trying to make.

_Next up they're gonna rule that state legislatures can override the will of the people in elections.  Hot on the heels of Thomas stating he believes COVID-19 vaccines are made from aborted fetuses.  I knew it was only a matter of time until dipshits brought fascism to this country, I just didn't think it would be dropped on our heads all at once._​


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Which are, in many states, a uniparty affair, with the governor being of the same party.  Your suggestion that we empower any small group of people to override the votes of an entire state is not just moronic, it's also malicious, and I think you fucking know that.
> 
> 
> There is quite a bit, which is why you don't want to remove any more checks on federal representatives' power and tenure.  Duh.
> ...


Giving power back to the states *is* a check on the federal government, you dolt.

You don't understand what decentralized power is obviously.

State legislatures draw maps. If you don't like it, elect different state representatives.

If you cast doubt on elections, you'll be branded an insurrectionist, white supremacist facscist. Tread carefully my friend.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> I'm not aware of any states that use any electoral college style system in their state government elections. So the governor is a simple majority vote, and state house/senate are majorities in their districts. So a uniparty would just reflect the will of the people in that state.


It's a matter of giving them the means to stay in power indefinitely, denying people the choice to oust them from here on out.



SScorpio said:


> What checks on the power and tenure for federal representatives are there?


For one, they're elected by the people and not their state legislatures.



SScorpio said:


> Federal house/senate is in extreme need of term limits, people being in power for 50 years is why nothing ever gets fixed.


Agreed.



SScorpio said:


> Putting power into the hands of the states breaks up who controls what area.


This isn't "putting" power anywhere, it's a matter of _stealing_ power from people and degrading our democracy as a whole.



SScorpio said:


> But earlier you were arguing for a fascist small one world government.


I've never argued in favor of that.  I've argued against it as one world government would mean absolute corporate control, aka fascist oligarchy.



SScorpio said:


> As you're researching governments, look up how the old cities states were governed. It's not a one to one comparison, but the idea was to have the states be their own things with the Federal government being a mediator between the states. That was eroded over time with attempts to centralize the government and for the Feds to seize power they don't have.


Why bother when I can refer back the American Revolution to know how we should feel about people trying to crown themselves monarchs?  This ain't ye olden times, and even if it were the votes of the people (white landowners) still mattered, not only the votes of their representatives.



SScorpio said:


> _Next up they're gonna rule that state legislatures can override the will of the people in elections. Hot on the heels of Thomas stating he believes COVID-19 vaccines are made from aborted fetuses. I knew it was only a matter of time until dipshits brought fascism to this country, I just didn't think it would be dropped on our heads all at once._


The ruling carries with it the possible implication that state legislatures would be able to submit their own electors in place of those chosen by the people.  This is something Trump tried and failed to do in the 2020 election.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> It's a matter of giving them the means to stay in power indefinitely, denying people the choice to oust them from here on out.
> 
> 
> For one, they're elected by the people and not their state legislatures.
> ...


Why wouldn't the people be able to vote their representatives out of office? Unless you think elections in the US are fraudulent, which I've heard is alt right speak and flat out racism.

How is giving power to representatives closest to the people degrading our democracy?

Your arguments are based on emotions and don't even make sense anymore. You don't understand the definition of words and you spout corporate media talking points. It's a complete waste of time to even engage with you anymore. How you've gotten this far in life will always be a mystery. I hope you wear a helmet everywhere you go, just to be safe.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> State legislatures draw maps. If you don't like it, elect different state representatives.


How fucking dense are you?  If state legislatures draw their own maps, the party already in power will never lose another election again.  They have data sets for voters down to the individual, let alone the communities they choose to include or omit in their maps.

State courts must have the power to reject obvious partisan power grabs via gerrymandering.



TraderPatTX said:


> If you cast doubt on elections


Your stance is that we should have openly corrupt elections in which the will of the people is overridden by the will of the few.  I'm not casting doubt, I'm outright declaring that American elections would become strictly for show if you got your way.  Free and fair elections are the compromise we made with the elites for putting away the guillotines.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> How fucking dense are you?  If state legislatures draw their own maps, the party already in power will never lose another election again.  They have data sets for voters down to the individual, let alone the communities they choose to include or omit in their maps.
> 
> State courts must have the power to reject obvious partisan power grabs via gerrymandering.
> 
> ...


So your answer is to just trash the Constitution because it is inconvenient for you. That's the left's only answer to every "problem".

We do not have corrupt elections in this country. To say we do is tearing at the fabric of our democracy.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jul 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> How fucking dense are you?  If state legislatures draw their own maps, the party already in power will never lose another election again.  They have data sets for voters down to the individual, let alone the communities they choose to include or omit in their maps.
> 
> State courts must have the power to reject obvious partisan power grabs via gerrymandering.
> 
> ...



But it's a partisan power grab of *their *party and ideals, so it's okay.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> So your answer is to just trash the Constitution because it is inconvenient for you.


The constitution includes certain amendments to ensure free and fair elections.  Only a malicious and purposeful misreading of it would allow SCROTUS to remove those protections.



TraderPatTX said:


> We do not have corrupt elections in this country. To say we do is tearing at the fabric of our democracy.


I didn't say we currently do.  You're suggesting we should allow for corrupt elections, however.


----------



## SScorpio (Jul 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> I've never argued in favor of that.  I've argued against it as one world government would mean absolute corporate control, aka fascist oligarchy.


My appologies, it a comment from LainaGabranth followed by you talking about one world governments and lower global populations.


Xzi said:


> Why bother when I can refer back the American Revolution to know how we should feel about people trying to crown themselves monarchs?  This ain't ye olden times, and even if it were the votes of the people (white landowners) still mattered, not only the votes of their representatives.


And I again ask how people are attempting to crown themselves monarchs? If anything it feels like the representatives in the federal government view themselves as our betters and know what's best for us versus being our voice. And implementing our will.


stanleyopar2000 said:


> But it's a partisan power grab of *their *party and ideals, so it's okay.


It goes both ways, and so far the best redistricting map I've seen for my state were when both parties were complaining it's unfair.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> The constitution includes certain amendments to ensure free and fair elections.  Only a malicious and purposeful misreading of it would allow SCROTUS to remove those protections.
> 
> 
> I didn't say we currently do.  You're suggesting we should allow for corrupt elections, however.


Yes, it specifies that state legislatures make election laws. The election boards don't. The governors don't. The secretaries of state don't. The fact that that makes you seething mad that the people's representatives make laws says a lot about your mental health.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> If anything it feels like the representatives in the federal government view themselves as our betters and know what's best for us versus being our voice. And implementing our will.


The federal government is not (currently) trying to seize control of our elections, the republican party is trying to seize control of elections via state legislatures.



TraderPatTX said:


> Yes, it specifies that state legislatures make election laws.


Right.  Make election laws.  Not fucking _decide_ elections beforehand via gerrymandering and/or after via legislative override of the peoples' will. I've said it before and I'll say it again: "constitutional originalism" is no different from extremism. If you know anything of the founding fathers you'd know they didn't expect or want the country to live in 1776 for the rest of fucking time. Though if you're really that eager to bring guillotines back into style, I'll have to do some digging around in my garage.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> The federal government is not (currently) trying to seize control of our elections, the republican party is trying to seize control of elections via state legislatures.
> 
> 
> Right.  Make election laws.  Not fucking _decide_ elections beforehand via gerrymandering and/or after via legislative override of the peoples' will. I've said it before and I'll say it again: "constitutional originalism" is no different from extremism. If you know anything of the founding fathers you'd know they didn't expect or want the country to live in 1776 for the rest of fucking time. Though if you're really that eager to bring guillotines back into style, I'll have to do some digging around in my garage.


HR1 "For the People Act". Look.it.up.

Imagine reading text and applying the meaning that the writers intended as being extremist. Why do you think the Constitution can be amended? If you have a majority like you say you do, just amend it and quit whining about it.

I've come to the conclusion that you do not know how to use the internet and talking to you is a complete waste of my time. Nobody can be this stupid. Your dumb words actually bring me physical pain when read them.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> HR1 "For the People Act". Look.it.up.


Okay?  A bill that passed the House and will never be introduced in the Senate because it wouldn't pass there thanks to a party line vote?  Believe me I wish it would, but wishful thinking isn't gonna change what SCROTUS decides in this upcoming case.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Okay?  A bill that passed the House and will never be introduced in the Senate because it wouldn't pass there thanks to a party line vote?  Believe me I wish it would, but wishful thinking isn't gonna change what SCROTUS decides in this upcoming case.


And if the Dems had a majority in the Senate, they would have voted to consolidate more power in DC, enriching the administrative state and taking freedoms away from the people.

And you call me fascist. STFU with that nonsense.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> And if the Dems had a majority in the Senate, they would have voted to consolidate more power in DC, enriching the administrative state and taking freedoms away from the people.


Desperately grasping at straws now, eh?  Did you even read the thing you told me to look up?  It specifically says independent redistricting commissions would carry out drawing the maps.  And that doesn't mean "independent" as in the vague political affiliation, it means nonpartisan.  So no, they wouldn't have voted the way you wanted them to.



TraderPatTX said:


> And you call me fascist.


You prove it more and more with every post.  The mental gymnastics you attempt to justify authoritarianism with are getting ridiculous.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Desperately grasping at straws now, eh?  Did you even read the thing you told me to look up?  It specifically says independent redistricting commissions would carry out drawing the maps.  And that doesn't mean "independent" as in the vague political affiliation, it means nonpartisan.  So no, they wouldn't have voted the way you wanted them to.
> 
> 
> You prove it more and more with every post.  The mental gymnastics you attempt to justify authoritarianism with are getting ridiculous.


A commission of unelected bureaucrats not answerable to the people. That's the definition of authoritarianism. 

The only thing I prove is how fascist you are. Like I just did.


----------



## SScorpio (Jul 15, 2022)

Xzi said:


> Desperately grasping at straws now, eh?  Did you even read the thing you told me to look up?  It specifically says independent redistricting commissions would carry out drawing the maps.  And that doesn't mean "independent" as in the vague political affiliation, it means nonpartisan.  So no, they wouldn't have voted the way you wanted them to.


The redistricting of maps is only one part of the bill.  Other major parts are unconstitutional requirements on how state run elections. And if you've already forgotten, after the 2020 election we were reminded time and time again states have the ultimate say in how they run their elections. Yet right after a change in leadership, those people arguing that are trying to force state to change their voting rules at the federal level.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 15, 2022)

SScorpio said:


> The redistricting of maps is only one part of the bill.  Other major parts unconstitutional requirements on how state run elections. And if you've already forgotten, after the 2020 election we were reminded time and time again states have the ultimate say in how they run their elections. Yet right a change in leadership, those people arguing that are trying to enforce state to change their voting rules at the federal level.


The left doesn't want state legislatures to have any power at all because they are too close to the people. It's easier for us to assert our control over state legislatures than it is over Congress. They will do anything to prevent the rubes from having that kind of control again.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 16, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> A commission of unelected bureaucrats not answerable to the people. That's the definition of authoritarianism.


LMAO so you've come around to my side, eh?  You're right, SCOTUS is acting like a bunch of authoritarian dickweeds right now, and the case before them would allow them to take away what little power voters have to influence the system.  You want state representatives to be able to re-elect themselves, which would in practice also make them unelected bureaucrats.



SScorpio said:


> And if you've already forgotten, after the 2020 election we were reminded time and time again states have the ultimate say in how they run their elections.


We were reminded of the opposite, that states do not have unlimited authority in exploiting the election systems they themselves create.  Which is why the fake electors meant to reinstall the election's loser as president were rejected.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 16, 2022)

Xzi said:


> LMAO so you've come around to my side, eh?  You're right, SCOTUS is acting like a bunch of authoritarian dickweeds right now, and the case before them would allow them to take away what little power voters have to influence the system.  You want state representatives to be able to re-elect themselves, which would in practice also make them unelected bureaucrats.
> 
> 
> We were reminded of the opposite, that states do not have unlimited authority in exploiting the election systems they themselves create.  Which is why the fake electors meant to reinstall the election's loser as president were rejected.


WTF are you talking about? You're argument makes zero sense anymore.

Explain why unelected bureaucrats is better than elected state representatives. Are you saying that Democrats are not the majority and would not be able to win elections? Is that why you want a commission who answers to nobody?


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 17, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> WTF are you talking about?


3 supreme court justices, elected by a president who didn't win the popular vote/ already did not have the majority of people's consent. Those same justices, went on publicly, saying they would not overturn roe v wade, before they were swore in. Who then proceeded to overturn roe v wade.
In other words.


TraderPatTX said:


> A commission of unelected bureaucrats not answerable to the people.


Exactly what you just described.


----------



## TraderPatTX (Jul 17, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> 3 supreme court justices, elected by a president who didn't win the popular vote/ already did not have the majority of people's consent. Those same justices, went on publicly, saying they would not overturn roe v wade, before they were swore in. Who then proceeded to overturn roe v wade.
> In other words.
> 
> Exactly what you just described.


I'm sorry that you don't understand the Electoral College. It's only been around since the 1780's. But now you understand why we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy. And they never said that they would never overturn it. It was reported that Kavanaugh gave private assurances that he wouldn't vote to overturn Roe v Wade, but those were unconfirmed. In fact, an email was "leaked" where he said it wasn't settled law. But you are mad because you believe everything the corporate media tells you.

You people act like this is the first Supreme Court decision to have ever been overturned. It is not. Win more elections and you too can have somebody nominate Supreme Court Justices. Good luck in future elections.


----------



## XDel (Jul 17, 2022)

Over half of the global norms that are causing harm to the environment and our selves are things we could live without, but refuse to live without. Both the right and left are guilty of mindless addiction and dependence upon greater "technologies", which half the time end up being anti-technologies and drag down the culture more than they were worth.

That said, many on the so called left like to cite the natives and how they were screwed over, and while some of them were, there were plenty that were screwing over other natives before the British, Spanish, English, Arabs, Dutch, etc. ever made it over here. Though that is not my point, my point is that we often look back at the natives like victims, and we like to elevate ways in which their life was better, or allegedly better than many people's lives after Columbus, or more accurately, Jefferson, though I don't see anyone shunning their technology and trying to revive these old simple ways that carried many so very far, all without a centralized government at that.

For some of us, and I fear too many of us, the slave mentality is embedded so deep, that they would happily give up self reliance and autonomy in order that big government can come in and micro manage every factor of our life, and they will just trust them blindly.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Jul 17, 2022)

XDel said:


> For some of us, and I fear too many of us, the slave mentality is embedded so deep, that they would happily give up self reliance and autonomy in order that big government can come in and micro manage every factor of our life, and they will just trust them blindly.


Posted by a theist btw :^)


----------



## XDel (Jul 17, 2022)

LainaGabranth said:


> Posted by a theist btw :^)


That's only relevant to post modernist cult acolytes like your self, and really has nothing what so ever to do with my post, other than maybe that a Theist has a foundation upon which they derive their morals, where as an A-Theist tends to trust what they say are a bunch of random chemicals in their brains that tell them the  truth.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 17, 2022)

TraderPatTX said:


> I'm sorry that you don't understand the Electoral College. It's only been around since the 1780's. But now you understand why we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy. And they never said that they would never overturn it. It was reported that Kavanaugh gave private assurances that he wouldn't vote to overturn Roe v Wade, but those were unconfirmed. In fact, an email was "leaked" where he said it wasn't settled law. But you are mad because you believe everything the corporate media tells you.
> 
> You people act like this is the first Supreme Court decision to have ever been overturned. It is not. Win more elections and you too can have somebody nominate Supreme Court Justices. Good luck in future elections.


We can talk circles and circles about this. But I really don't feel like it, since it's just retreading the same shit all over.
1. We live in a representative democracy. You can continue to claim it's a "constitutional republic" but that's straight up false. Why?
In a representative democracy, you have as many representatives equal to both power and total people being represented. This is mostly accurate within the house of representatives, and senators.
2nd. the electoral collage was _intended_ not not have gerrymandering in mind. Something the Republican party profusely protects at all costs. Gerrymandering allows for over representation of a particular group.

The people who made the constitution choose the electoral collage as the best choice for the time. Since trying to get representatives to know certain things who where several states away in Washington, wasn't exactly possible to react in a timely manor.

3. Madison (the writer of the constitution and bill of rights) blatantly called it a democracy. Along with Alexander Hamilton. Lincon used constitutional republic and democracy interchangeably in his speech.
So in other words, just be honest that you don't support a democracy. Because even the people who setup this country, called it a democracy.




TraderPatTX said:


> You people act like this is the first Supreme Court decision to have ever been overturned. It is not.


This is the first supreme court decision made by a truly rogue court. Even when they made controversial rulings, people accepted it even if they didn't like it. Because we at least could at the time believe that the system was bipartisan. We can't now. Because a president, the ONLY president, to elect 33% of the supreme court justices in HIS favor. 2 of them,shouldn't have even happened. I'll just restate what I said in the past. the first judge trump choose. Only happened because the Republican senate stonewalled Obama's pick for 9 entire months. citing that people should vote their next justice.

 And the second pick. was rushed through by and with the Republican senate in almost less than 2 weeks before the election was finalized.  The Republican's explanation? Oh we got to file vacant seats as fast as possible.
The amount of hypocrisy on this case is absurd.  Either Obama's pick should of gone through if we believed in the speed rule. Or, Biden should of got to choose the last supreme court justice, as a result of the "people voting"
The courts got straight up rigged. If you cannot agree on at least that aspect alone. Then I'm done wasting my time talking to you. If you can't see the hypcrosisy in this, nor how it was rigged into Republican favor. Then you just care what you like, and that's it, no principles, no honesty, no integrity.


----------



## Jayro (Jul 17, 2022)

Anyone else feel like life is too fucking complicated now, everything is a goddamn complex mess, and we just need to chill the fuck out? No, just me? Ok I'll just go fuck myself then...


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 17, 2022)

Jayro said:


> Anyone else feel like life is too fucking complicated now, everything is a goddamn complex mess, and we just need to chill the fuck out? No, just me? Ok I'll just go fuck myself then...


I relate. More so just incredibly stressful.


----------



## XDel (Jul 17, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> We can talk circles and circles about this. But I really don't feel like it, since it's just retreading the same shit all over.
> 1. We live in a representative democracy. You can continue to claim it's a "constitutional republic" but that's straight up false. Why?
> In a representative democracy, you have as many representatives equal to both power and total people being represented. This is mostly accurate within the house of representatives, and senators.
> 2nd. the electoral collage was _intended_ not not have gerrymandering in mind. Something the Republican party profusely protects at all costs. Gerrymandering allows for over representation of a particular group.
> ...


The Constitution and Bill of rights are what prevents Democracy, aka MOB RULE, from becoming MOB RULE. Seeing as we can't seem to follow them or agree anymore about how words and reality is to be interpreted, then we shall quickly fall to MOB RULE, and I can assure you, the power that be on the Democrat side, as well as the Traditional Republican side, have the same exact end goals in mind, and you'd really have to be a believer in their media to buy into any of it. Life is simple, don't let them over complicate things with their many words. Judge them by their fruits!


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 17, 2022)

XDel said:


> The Constitution and Bill of rights are what prevents Democracy,


Alright, let's ask co writer of a important document.
"A representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen _really_ and not _nominally_ by the people, will in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable" ---The Federalist Paper, co author Alexander Hamilton echoing James Madison's opinion.

They were trying to prevent a "we're the majority" when they actually weren't. and trying to make sure people genuinely wanted what they wanted.

In this case, this strikes against the republican party several times over. because not a single Republican president since 2004 won the popular vote. Nor was roe v wade being overturned.
So unless you want to against one of the founders. You better start explaining why you want to go overthrow your own supposed constitution you follow. Since the federalist papers was part/create the framework used to create the constitution.


----------



## XDel (Jul 17, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Alright, let's ask co writer of a important document.
> "A representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen _really_ and not _nominally_ by the people, will in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable" ---The Federalist Paper, co author Alexander Hamilton echoing James Madison's opinion.
> 
> They were trying to prevent a "we're the majority" when they actually weren't. and trying to make sure people genuinely wanted it.
> ...


I seem to recall Gay "Marriage" being forced upon us all by a certain Supreme Court a few years ago, in spite of majority opposition. 

And like I said, the traditional Republicans are NO DIFFERENT than the Democrats. I am sure MANY elections have been stolen, look how no one talks about Diebold Voting Machines since the Bush Jr. Election, especially now that voting machines have shown to be suspect once again when Biden (The most voted for candidate in history) was elected. 

Just because the two parties have always warred against one another doesn't mean that their international policies are not pretty much in line, it's just how they are going to go about the end game that they disagree about, who gets to sit in the throne, who gets rich, who gets made, who gets laid, granted power, etc. 
People sell their souls, welcome to Earth.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 17, 2022)

XDel said:


> I seem to recall Gay "Marriage" being forced upon us all by a certain Supreme Court a few years ago, in spite of majority opposition.


https://www.pewresearch.org/politic...-record-high-but-key-segments-remain-opposed/
that's also false. Your living in a information silo.
(If you can't read the graph. basically in 2010. it was opposed. but by 2015. people overwhelmingly supported it)


XDel said:


> I am sure MANY elections have been stolen


None have been stolen. No proof of voter fraud. Which would be the only way of a "stolen" election. That doesn't mean elections can't be rigged. It's that no illegal activity had made it stolen. Which would mean the only legal way of "stealing" or rigging, would be through gerrymandering. Something again, the Republican party disproportionately relies on to win in elections.

Now I'm going to repeat myself.


Nothereed said:


> You better start explaining why you want to go overthrow your own supposed constitution you follow. Since the federalist papers was part/create the framework used to create the constitution.


proof through the Federalist papers,the founders called it a democracy.
So start explaining yourself about  "The Constitution and Bill of rights are what prevents Democracy" and how your not going against the founders.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 17, 2022)

XDel said:


> That's only relevant to post modernist cult acolytes like your self, and really has nothing what so ever to do with my post, other than maybe that a Theist has a foundation upon which they derive their morals, where as an A-Theist tends to trust what they say are a bunch of random chemicals in their brains that tell them the  truth.


Just be careful to not do anything to anger your god


----------



## Dakitten (Jul 17, 2022)

XDel said:


> I seem to recall Gay "Marriage" being forced upon us all by a certain Supreme Court a few years ago, in spite of majority opposition.
> 
> And like I said, the traditional Republicans are NO DIFFERENT than the Democrats. I am sure MANY elections have been stolen, look how no one talks about Diebold Voting Machines since the Bush Jr. Election, especially now that voting machines have shown to be suspect once again when Biden (The most voted for candidate in history) was elected.
> 
> ...


Oh hell, I heard about this! I remember seeing the dumbocrat gay sodomy shotgun wedding vans pour out of all the federal lots around the country and demanding everyone marry from their own sex or else! 

Also, as a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WHO WORKS AT THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS OFFICE DURING ELECTIONS, I can indeed verify this totally not crackpot theory about foreign voting machines corrupting the ballot counts, especially since its not like the RoV actually hand-counts a couple percentage of everything that goes in to compare it to the overall statistics and offers tours of their operations to anybody who schedules an appointment so that they can verify the integrity of the process!

/sarcasm

Both parties suck, but only one party is going above and beyond in their mad dash towards fascism. Also you need to stop with your conspiratorial nonsense, comrade. It makes you look a bit silly.


----------



## XDel (Jul 17, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> https://www.pewresearch.org/politic...-record-high-but-key-segments-remain-opposed/
> that's also false. Your living in a information silo.
> (If you can't read the graph. basically in 2010. it was opposed. but by 2015. people overwhelmingly supported it)
> 
> ...


Actually a lot of proof has been provided over elections being fraud, but like the Jeffery Epstein case, we ain't going to see any major players on that list go to prison. The system is crooked. 

And if the Constitution & & Bill of Rights are nott there to protect against MOB RULE, then what is it there for? So you can murder babies?

And no, back in 2015, the Pride movement didn't have people nearly as brain washed as they are now. If you asked most people now, they'd have no clue why anyone was ever against gay marriage in the first place.


----------



## Nothereed (Jul 17, 2022)

XDel said:


> And no, back in 2015, the Pride movement didn't have people nearly as brain washed as they are now.


okay this statement proves alone that you only read certain buzz words, and then proceed to make your argument.





same paper
https://www.pewresearch.org/politic...-record-high-but-key-segments-remain-opposed/

If your not going to take the time to read someones sources, I don't have to take the time to argue with you.


----------



## Dakitten (Jul 17, 2022)

XDel said:


> And no, back in 2015, the Pride movement didn't have people nearly as brain washed as they are now. If you asked most people now, they'd have no clue why anyone was ever against gay marriage in the first place.


Ooh, do tell! Why would anyone be against gay marriage now? How has the decision harmed you? The rest of your insanity aside, I'm absolutely here for this answer!


----------



## XDel (Jul 17, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> okay this statement proves alone that you only read certain buzz words, and then proceed to make your argument.
> 
> View attachment 318273
> same paper
> ...


I can look out my window or turn on a friend's Cable TV, and see that acceptance is spreading regardless of Party Lines, Religion, etc. That is how marketing works when the people are not educated to think critically, understand what they stand for, and why they stand for it. Like I said, mostly everybody today supports gay marriage, but they have no idea why they used to be against it, or anything else they used to be against, any more than they know their parents, grand parents or great grand parent's values and what they stood for. And further more, the variety of natives that lived here before don't seem to have left any lasting opinions on the matter because they've all been assimilated along with everyone else. And the sad thing is that today when we think of freedom, we think it has to do with putting our pee pee in another man's butt. How far we've came. We're spoiled, dumb, and blind.


----------



## XDel (Jul 17, 2022)

SG854 said:


> Just be careful to not do anything to anger your god


Be sure not to do anything that makes you uncomfortable. Find a safe place and lock your self inside. Put on your blinders, put on your ear plugs, and cop out.


----------



## XDel (Jul 17, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Ooh, do tell! Why would anyone be against gay marriage now? How has the decision harmed you? The rest of your insanity aside, I'm absolutely here for this answer!


There are TONS upon tons of threads with me discussing just that, have at em', at least those that have not been deleted. Also there is the link in my Avatar, it's full of interesting research information, but you are just being a child, you are ganging up on me with your friends and poking fun. It's not like anything of importance is actually going to make it's way through your filter when you are acting as a limb or tentacle of a mob.


----------



## Dakitten (Jul 17, 2022)

XDel said:


> I can look out my window or turn on a friend's Cable TV, and see that acceptance is spreading regardless of Party Lines, Religion, etc. That is how marketing works when the people are not educated to think critically, understand what they stand for, and why they stand for it. Like I said, mostly everybody today supports gay marriage, but they have no idea why they used to be against it, or anything else they used to be against, any more than they know their parents, grand parents or great grand parent's values and what they stood for. And further more, the variety of natives that lived here before don't seem to have left any lasting opinions on the matter because they've all been assimilated along with everyone else. And the sad thing is that today when we think of freedom, we think it has to do with putting our pee pee in another man's butt. How far we've came. We're spoiled, dumb, and blind.


Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe the issue of gay marriage was why it was hated at all in the first place? People had a very warped perception until it became more normalized and discussed, and now that gay couples can come forward and share their experiences without scorn and danger (to a better degree, at least), nobody has an argument against it that can stick.

I'm not a thread archaeologist, and I certainly don't care to pollute my youtube recommendations on "take my word on it, everything is in my vids!" Sorry if so many people are jumping on you for being homophobic as hell, but if you're going to make an outrageous claim, you ought to be prepared to back it up.

Also, noticing Brave New World in your signature... I'd endorse picking up Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Similar themes, less fantasy, more modern day relevance.


----------



## XDel (Jul 17, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe the issue of gay marriage was why it was hated at all in the first place? People had a very warped perception until it became more normalized and discussed, and now that gay couples can come forward and share their experiences without scorn and danger (to a better degree, at least), nobody has an argument against it that can stick.
> 
> I'm not a thread archaeologist, and I certainly don't care to pollute my youtube recommendations on "take my word on it, everything is in my vids!" Sorry if so many people are jumping on you for being homophobic as hell, but if you're going to make an outrageous claim, you ought to be prepared to back it up.
> 
> Also, noticing Brave New World in your signature... I'd endorse picking up Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Similar themes, less fantasy, more modern day relevance.


Oh, so you've read through all my previous posts on other threads, not including the deleted ones, and had the time to go through all the videos in my avatar link and have found that nothing I have to say is going to stick?


----------



## Dakitten (Jul 17, 2022)

XDel said:


> Oh, so you've read through all my previous posts on other threads, not including the deleted ones, and had the time to go through all the videos in my avatar link and have found that nothing I have to say is going to stick?


You obviously didn't read my post. I'm NOT a thread archaeologist and I'm not here to sate your website plug request. I'm asking YOU to back up your homophobic statement here in this thread where you've made the rather bold statement that people are blind for having forsaken anti-gay marriage stances in recent years. Outrageous claims require exceptional evidence, and I'm dying to know why YOU think marriage equality is harmful and the present majority is mistaken.


----------



## XDel (Jul 17, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> You obviously didn't read my post. I'm NOT a thread archaeologist and I'm not here to sate your website plug request. I'm asking YOU to back up your homophobic statement here in this thread where you've made the rather bold statement that people are blind for having forsaken anti-gay marriage stances in recent years. Outrageous claims require exceptional evidence, and I'm dying to know why YOU think marriage equality is harmful and the present majority is mistaken.


 What is a thread archaeologist? Are you referring to the fact that homosexual activity traces back through out known history? If that is the case, then yes, I am quite aware. Though if that is the case, what is your point?


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 17, 2022)

Dakitten said:


> You obviously didn't read my post. I'm NOT a thread archaeologist and I'm not here to sate your website plug request. I'm asking YOU to back up your homophobic statement here in this thread where you've made the rather bold statement that people are blind for having forsaken anti-gay marriage stances in recent years. Outrageous claims require exceptional evidence, and I'm dying to know why YOU think marriage equality is harmful and the present majority is mistaken.



I dont really care what he has to say. Idk what it is about anything remotely political that pulls in bigots like some kind of hate magnet. But I'm over it. Everyone of these threads, no matter the topic, always turns into gay/trans morality nonsense. People just looking for any glimmer of opportunity to interject their grievances with tolerance. We're done here. Closed.


----------

