POLITICS Random Political/Legal

Discussion in 'Politicants' started by fl0at_, Jun 7, 2021.

  1. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    But we also know this wasn’t thrown out simply because it would be better if codified into law. The court deemed the law didn’t provide a mandate for applying regulations that were being applied including not providing for the idea of a trading system (at least I believe that was one of the beefs). I’m not a lawyer - won’t pretend to be one. I never felt comfortable with the clean air act being used to regulate CO2. We’ve been around on that. Classifying it as a pollutant didn’t seem to properly capture its nature in our atmosphere. But that’s more of a policy perspective than a legal perspective. I can’t really say if the court was justified to say it was a misapplication of the Clean Air Act. But conceptually I agree with it and I think a better - and necessary - outcome would be climate legislation.
     
  2. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    You're hiding behind semantics of law, not reason. "The law didn't." Doesn't matter, we know we need to. "This isn't always." Doesn't matter, we know we need to.

    "Well we don't have the votes to stop nuclear war, so, *launch*."
     
  3. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    I honestly don’t know why you are pointing to reason here. The government doesn’t have the authority to regulate matters if there is no legal authority to do it. The court said the Clean Air Act doesn’t give that legal authority. I’m not saying they weren’t trying to do the “right” thing. But I do believe they went about doing it the wrong way. It was the way they could, so fine. But the court has determined they didn’t have that legal authority. If that’s a bullshit legal read, then that sucks because regulation, I agree, is the right thing to do. But I also don’t want the executive branch routinely going outside the bounds of the law to try to push their policies. Seems like one could end up on the wrong side of that quite quickly - with the other side doing what they thought was the “right” thing to do.

    No doubt the “wrong” thing can be passed into law and used to regulate matters in a way I don’t like. But at least it was actually a law, passed by appropriate measures and not struck down by the court.
     
  4. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Government has a duty to protect, not follow legal scripture. They aren't religion.

    Government must absolutely be flexible enough to do something good, quickly.

    This religious devotion to "law" is I guess just the next thing to [uck fay] humanity.

    Especially when someone can't point to reason.
     
  5. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    One of these people will be a representative for Tennessee from the middle of the state, including the southern part of Nashville after gerrymandering rendered the largest city in the state mute.

     
  6. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I've had this conversation today, so I'll spread up East. You guys need to start getting the word out that all blue in a gerrymandered district vote in the primary against any incumbent. If you're going to be gerrymandered, voting blue is dumb anyway, so at least go for so much chaos and lack of stability that it undoes the purpose.

    Eventually they'll just stop having primaries, but at least you might get some chaos in.
     
  7. IP

    IP "You don't know what it is like in our universe."

    We already are seeing it. On its own, it would take minimum several centuries for things to level out, but some things can't be reversed. It's like asking how we could get mastodons back.
     
    zehr27 likes this.
  8. lumberjack4

    lumberjack4 Chieftain

    Serious question how is this any different from states saying their electors will cast for the winner of the national popular vote (assuming enough other states sign on). If one is OK than this scenario would be too. In both scenarios there's a chance the state votes opposite of their citizens intent.
     
  9. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    How would state vote opposite of citizen intent in national public vote? Citizen intent is the national vote.
     
  10. lumberjack4

    lumberjack4 Chieftain

    By not voting for the winner of the state popular vote. If the state voted R but the national popular vote voted D, then these laws would mean the states vote for the D in the electoral vote. Circumventing the will of the people in those states just like the doomsday scenario in that Twitter thread. One can't be OK and the other bad. They're either both OK or both aren't.
    As we are a federation of states it's up to the states in the end to choose how they elect the president, but it can't be terrible for democracy when the end result is not what you want but good for democracy when your side wins. That's Trump logic.
     
  11. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    I think it's a fair point, but there is a difference. Casting electors for the popular vote getter is designed to give the only national office to the person who does get the will of the people in a popular vote. The other is designed to change election results simply because the vote didn't go the way a certain party desired.

    The best thing would be to get rid of an antiquated Electoral College. We should really do an reboot of the Constitution, too, but good luck tossing out that sacred cow.
     
  12. lumberjack4

    lumberjack4 Chieftain

    Disagree on the first part. I see both scenarios as each side working within the current rules of the system in an attempt to prejudice the outcome to the one that they want. 100% agree on the second part.
     
  13. justingroves

    justingroves supermod

     
  14. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I think one is whimsical and the other isn't. One is being done so they can say something was fraudulent, which is opinion and whimsical.

    The other is taking an outcome and going with it.

    Now, if they say popular vote, and don't follow through, then yea. But if they do follow through, not whimsical.
     
  15. emainvol

    emainvol Administrator

    It actually could have been worse if the state party hadn’t kicked Robby Starbuck off the ballot

    That mother[uck fay]er is beyond awful
     
  16. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    i'm not an anti vaxxer, but for the life of me i dont' understand why anyone would get their kid who is under 5 vaccinated. what's the upside?
     
  17. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I vaccinated my 6 year old. Not a lot of difference between under 5 and 6.

    It's either a safe vaccine, and beneficial to him, in that mRNA vaccines are the future, and that the long term effects of a COVID infection aren't known (there are some documented for some, though for most, there doesn't seem to be long term effects).

    Or, it'll result in some massive unknown and uncontrolled biological reaction, that will likely happen to me as well.

    There seems to be more upside than downside, but, it's medicine. This is an experiment. All drugs are.
     
  18. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    we don't know the long term effects of the vaccine either. and we know kids that age are likely to not get it and if they do it's extremely mild. I'm sure you are probably right that the downside is likely zero, but I just don't see the upside at all.
     
  19. IP

    IP "You don't know what it is like in our universe."

  20. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

Share This Page