COPPER JUST GOT CLOBBERED

Getting originalists on the Supreme Court is something that will be beneficial for decades to come. Dobbs is but one concrete example of that reality. By getting rid of legislation enacted by a previous SCOTUS, we're making progress on returning judicial review to actual laws rather than having legal decisions issued on the basis of political policy ala Keystone Pipeline and mining permits.

PrintSmith wrote: Getting originalists on the Supreme Court is something that will be beneficial for decades to come. Dobbs is but one concrete example of that reality. By getting rid of legislation enacted by a previous SCOTUS, we're making progress on returning judicial review to actual laws rather than having legal decisions issued on the basis of political policy ala Keystone Pipeline and mining permits.

WHAT A UNIQUE WAY OF STATING THAT.....I WOULD CALL THEM LAP DOG LOYALIST,ALLOWING TRUMP HIS EVER WHIM AND SHITTING ON THE CONSTITUTION.....SOMEONE IS GOING TO HAVE TO CLEAN THE SHIT UP EVENTUALLY. LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF FASCISM ....MANY SIMILARITIES SURROUND R CIRCUMSTANCES.....LAWS,NOW THERE IS A LAUGHABLE TOPIC,TRUMP HAS ATTEMPTED TO BREAK EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM.....AND SCOTUS IS ALLOWING A GET OUT OF JAIL CARD......

WANTING TO OPEN UP SPACE RESERVED FOR CREATURES ,.NATURE TO FLOURISH AND PEOPLE TO FIND SOME RESPITE AND GIVING THE R.E. INDUSTRY FREE REIN ..HIS MOTTO BUILD,BUILD,BUILD.... I FIND THAT ABHORRENT,ASININE,AND INCOMPREHENSIBLE.....THERE IS ONLY ONE PLANET WE CAN SURVIVE ON (AS OF THIS TIME IN HISTORY).....LOOK INTO YOUR CHILDREN 'S AND THEIR CHILDREN'S UP COMING FUTURE AND TELL ME U SEE IT BRIGHT,SHINY AND LIVABLE.......HERE'S A THOUGHT, MUSK IS MAKING STRIDES TO ENABLE SPACE TRAVEL OF THE MASSES, HE HAS A MULTITUDE OF CHILDREN........DO U THINK THEY WILL FLOURISH ON EARTH....THE ANSWER IS NO....THE FUTURE HOLDS INTERSTELLAR
TRAVEL TO A COMPATIBLE AND COMPARABLE EARTH....THE PLANET CALLED EARTH WILL BE UNLIVABLE ,BECAUSE OF THE STUPIDITY OF MANKIND. i WILL NOT BE AROUND TO SEE THAT
SAD SAGA.....AND FOR THAT I AM GRATEFUL.....FORWARD THINKING IS A MUST AND MOST(INCLUDING THE CZAR) R NOT REALIZING THE RAMIFICATIONS COMING OUR WAY. JMO

BUT......Tipping point......PER STEPHEN HAWKINS

The Cambridge physicist regarded global warming as one of the biggest threats to life on the planet. Hawking was particularly fearful of a so-called tipping point, where global warming would become irreversible. He also expressed concern about America's decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement.

"We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees, and raining sulphuric acid," he told BBC News.

homeagain wrote:

WHILE HE MAY BE RIGHT....EXPEDITING THE PROCESS IS NOT HAPPENING...PERHAPS HE SHOULD HAVE CONCENTRATED ON THIS PROJECT INSTEAD OF FUCKING WITH WOMEN'S BODIES.

There you go, PS... a clear and concise answer that fits perfectly in this thread...LOL.

homeagain wrote: WHAT A UNIQUE WAY OF STATING THAT.....I WOULD CALL THEM LAP DOG LOYALIST,ALLOWING TRUMP HIS EVER WHIM AND SHITTING ON THE CONSTITUTION.....SOMEONE IS GOING TO HAVE TO CLEAN THE SHIT UP EVENTUALLY.

And that's where your ideology clouds your ability to think rationally. The justices that were nominated by Trump to the Supreme Court were nominated for their existing views regarding the Constitution, judicial review, and previous decisions by the Court. They have no loyalty to Trump, their loyalty is to the idea espoused by the founders and framers that the federal government is one of limited powers, not virtually unlimited powers. For their views that is the duty of the judiciary to review laws for compliance, not act as a legislature and write them. For their views that the judiciary is a co-equal branch of the federal government, not the most powerful branch of the government.

And yes, HA, the president of these United States does have immunity from prosecution for their official acts. Otherwise, someone would be able to drag Barak Obama, William Jefferson Clinton, George Bush, Ronald Reagan, Joe Biden, and Trump into court for green-lighting a guided missile strike on an individual person or group of people. Such and action lies within the definition of murder, and when the president of these United States orders up a hit on an enemy of our Union, he is shielded, by the immunity properly recognized by SCOTUS in their decision, from being prosecuted for the murder of the individuals killed in the missile strike. And if the president has immunity from prosecution for his official acts in that instance, then that same immunity applies to his other official acts because, wait for it, he is not acting as an individual in his official capacity, he is acting as a representative of all of the people, in all of the States. It is the same reason you can't prosecute a member of Congress for anything they say while acting in their capacity

The president is the head of the executive branch of the government. They can bribe the executives of other countries in pursuit of policy without consequence. If they accept a bribe themselves they can be impeached and tried by the legislative branch of the government in proceedings overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but you can't prosecute a sitting president for accepting a bribe while in office in federal court, his office precludes that action from being taken. The sole remedy for punishing him lies in the text of the Constitution, he may be impeached and removed from office upon conviction in the Senate for "high crimes and misdemeanors". And according to the Constitution, "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." That's an originalist interpretation of the federal Constitution, that conviction and removal from office is a requisite part of being able to indict, try, and convict for any crimes alleged while in office, and the decision rendered by the justices who ascribe to that view are doing so in fidelity to the Constitution itself, not a current or former president, because they know that their decision will apply not only in the case before them , but in future cases as well, even one that might involve a president with views wholly opposite of their own.

This understanding is reached by actually reading the SCOTUS decisions rather than relying on some talking head from within an echo chamber orbit to decipher it for you and tell you what you are supposed to think about the decision. You might still disagree with the decision, but at least you won't get the thought stuck in your head that the decision was reached out of loyalty to an individual rather than the Constitution.

THE EXTREME RIGHT RELIGIOUS SECTOR IS WHERE HIS BASE IS ......HE MOST ASSUREDLY
WILL MAKE THEM A PRIORITY... RELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION, HIS PRIORITY WAS NOT EXPEDITING THE MINE./COPPER PROCESS.,BUT RATHER APPEASING THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION'S FOCUS......WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND BRINGING BACK THE 50'S ERA,BECAUSE MALE DOMINANCE SHOULD RETURN.

Listen HA, the Congress could, if they wanted to, pass a law which stated that there would be no restrictions placed on any act of elective homicide anywhere within these United States. Fortunately, there has never been, and hopefully never will be, support for such a law at the federal level.

Dobbs has not a thing to do with the Heritage Foundation and everything to do with the fact, the absolute fact, recognized by RBG herself, that Roe v Wade was nothing more, and nothing less, than SCOTUS acting as a legislature when that decision was rendered. Our federal Constitution prohibits the judiciary from acting as a legislature and Dobbs was a recognition that SCOTUS failed in their mission and exceeded the authority granted to them in the Constitution when they decided that case. It is well established that SCOTUS makes mistakes, that's why previous decisions are overturned by later courts, Brown v Board of Education comes to mind.

If/when Congress decides to act, there will be a law that supersedes the State laws, even the ones that remain on the books. Until that time each State, as a sovereign entity itself, has the absolute power to enact laws that its citizens are subject to. Again, it is loyalty to the Constitution, not a person, not a religion, not a think tank, that drove the Dobbs decision.

I WILL NOT QUOTE THE ENTIRE POST OF PS....HOWEVER,WHY R ALL THE FEMALES IN SCOTUS IN AGREEMENT THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM...I CAN THINK OF ONLY ONE,BARRETT,WHO IS SO TRUMPPY SHE SHOULD BE HIS WIFE...HE BROUGHT HER ON TO THE BENCH,....THERE IS A DEFINITIVE BIAS,BUT THEN U R A MALE,WHO I BELIEVE ,DID NOT OBSERVE THE CLARENCE THOMAS/ANITA HILL DEBACLE...THAT WAS OBSCENE AND SO-O-O LOP SIDED IT WAS UNBELIEVABLE....HE STILL PRESIDES OVER THE SCOTUS....WHAT A TRAVESTY.

Supreme Court Justices are well nigh invulnerable to political pressure from above. Lifetime appointments and all.

Trump may have appointed some of them but I don't really think they are working for him.

I can't imagine Clarence Thomas not doing what he wants.

homeagain wrote: I WILL NOT QUOTE THE ENTIRE POST OF PS....HOWEVER,WHY R ALL THE FEMALES IN SCOTUS IN AGREEMENT THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM...I CAN THINK OF ONLY ONE,BARRETT,WHO IS SO TRUMPPY SHE SHOULD BE HIS WIFE...HE BROUGHT HER ON TO THE BENCH,....THERE IS A DEFINITIVE BIAS,BUT THEN U R A MALE,WHO I BELIEVE ,DID NOT OBSERVE THE CLARENCE THOMAS/ANITA HILL DEBACLE...THAT WAS OBSCENE AND SO-O-O LOP SIDED IT WAS UNBELIEVABLE....HE STILL PRESIDES OVER THE SCOTUS....WHAT A TRAVESTY.

I'll agree with you it was a debacle alright, circus might be a more apt descriptor. Referred out of committee for a Senate vote before, gasp, an allegation of unwelcome sexual comments was leaked from an FBI report and then Senator Joe Biden, who headed up the Judiciary Committee, because the Democrats controlled the Senate, reopened the confirmation hearing. Now, mind you, the FBI never found any evidence that Thomas made any of the comments alleged by Hill, but the mere existence of an allegation was enough for the Democrats to tear into a Republican nominee.

Yes, HA, I remember the televised "high tech lynching" of Clarence Thomas, vividly. I remember the testimony of many women who worked closely with Thomas at the EEOC who stated emphatically that there was no prospect of the allegations being true, it simply wasn't possible that the dozens of women with whom Thomas worked with closely would have never heard even a whisper of anything that was improper being said.

But then again, I remember it from a historical context, not a prejudicial partisan one.

AND WERE THESE MANY WOMEN 'WHITE'......i CAN NOT RECALL THE MAKE UP OF THOSE TESTIMONIES,BUT I DO BELIEVE HE HAD THING' FOR ANITA AND SHE REBUFFED HIM....HENCE
HIS RETRIBUTION AND RUDE CONDUCT....I BELIEVE WOMEN,JUST LIKE I BELIEVE CHILDREN WHEN THEY CALL OUT SOMETHING SERIOUSLY IS WRONG......ASK NICOLE SIMPSONS,WHILE SHE WAS ALIVE,TIME AND TIME AGAIN SHE PLEADED,REQUESTED AND WAS UNHEARD.

CLARENCE THOMAS IS CULPABLE AND HIS M.O. IS STILL THE SAME.....HIS RULINGS R QUESTIONABLE....JMO