EPA Power Abuse Stopped By the Supreme Court

[brenthutch 444]

Don't you find it disturbing that the interpretation of the Constitution depends only on the vagaries of 9 politically appointed judges?

Kallend thinks the constitution is unconstitutional. LOL

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Don't you find it disturbing that the interpretation of the Constitution depends only on the vagaries of 9 politically appointed judges?

Yes. Because judges, like environmental scientists, are people. You would think that judges and climate scientists alimenwould be all about putting their personal feelings aside and just making decisions based on evidence.

But expecting them to be robots is silly. They have egos. They have beliefs. And like anybody will find some justification for their decision. And if their conclusions can make some kind of societal change then so much the better. Or stop changes.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

*********Bout time

Yep. Good.What do you mean by "good"? Do you think unregulated dumping of mercury and arsenic into the air is "good"?

Don

Regulation and political agendas are two different things
Want another example?
Look at the waters of the US regulations set for Aug 1

Another abuse of power

It is agenda
Not science that drives them

Then how should it be regulated? Or should it not be regulated at all?

[Amazon 7]

SkyDekker

************Bout time

Yep. Good.What do you mean by "good"? Do you think unregulated dumping of mercury and arsenic into the air is "good"?

Don

Regulation and political agendas are two different things
Want another example?
Look at the waters of the US regulations set for Aug 1

Another abuse of power

It is agenda
Not science that drives them

Then how should it be regulated? Or should it not be regulated at all?

Follow the puppet strings Mister Geppetto

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

But expecting them to be robots is silly. They have egos. They have beliefs. And like anybody will find some justification for their decision. And if their conclusions can make some kind of societal change then so much the better. Or stop changes.

Sure. That's why the court was set up with 9 judges. I think the Founders knew full well that the cases that would come before the SC would be the ones that required some interpretation; anything that is black-and-white (disclaimer: not meant in a racial way) would be settled in the lower courts. Nine judges is enough to at least sample the range of possible perspectives, without becoming totally unwieldy. If it was just a matter of robotically applying the letter of the law, one judge could do that, but then that judge would become too powerful.

The link regarding the history of the legal battle over interracial marriage wolfriverjoe posted yesterday in the gay marriage thread is a perfect example of how societal change makes new understanding of the Constitution possible and even inevitable. For many years every challenge to state bans on interracial marriage was rejected, and the reason almost always included some reference to "natural law", the Christian Bible, or misconceptions that the progeny of interracial coupling would be weak, deformed, effeminate, etc. The judges who issued such rulings were not evil, they just took for granted certain "truths" that were founded in long tradition and were not (at that time) open to question. Over time many of those assumed truths have been disproven, or the societal context in which decisions are made have changed. No judge today would base a ruling on the notion that God created the races and put them on different continents so they could not mix, in part because we today understand that that violates the Establishment clause, but also because our society has evolved to the point where it is possible to even contemplate such issues, to imagine solutions that are not Biblically based. The words of the constitution have not changed, but the readers have changed so that interpretations that were obvious at one time are unthinkable now. Along the way, there will be some people who see things one way (the original way) and some the new, and so some will be outraged at whatever the court decides.

This is why I think arguments of "original intent" are bogus: not only is it difficult or impossible to now determine exactly what the "original intent" was, but "original intent" is also inextricably linked to a social context that may be irrelevant now or even seen as despicable (such as racism).

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

Regulation and political agendas are two different things

It is agenda
Not science that drives them

Are you saying that all the information on the health effects of mercury are bogus, made up by "liberal doctors and scientists" over decades just to one day be able to harass poor innocent power plant companies? All the way back in the 1950s those liberal Japanese fabricated Minamata Diseaseso one day the EPA could use it to advance some political agenda?

Quote

Want another example?
Look at the waters of the US regulations set for Aug 1

Misdirection. Why not try just answering the question for once?

What do you mean by "good"? Do you think unregulated dumping of mercury and arsenic into the air is "good"?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[lawrocket 3]

I think you've stated this very well. And I agree with plenty of what you say.

But we can also see how the whole thing has been shifted. Fifty years ago there were references to natural law to preclude interracial marriages. Of course, this is something that is not seen in the Constitution. The original intent of the Constitution? Well, the 14th Amendment changed that. And regardless of what "natural law" says (note that "natural law" isn't written anywhere. Natural law is whatever a person thinks the law should be and is by its nature arbitrary) the Constitution says "equal protection."

So it was another moment of "yep. Now it's being used again" during the California Prop 8 business. The California Attorney General cited "natural law" as the reason why Prop 8 should not stand. Really.

Quote

This is why I think arguments of "original intent" are bogus: not only is it difficult or impossible to now determine exactly what the "original intent" was, but "original intent" is also inextricably linked to a social context that may be irrelevant now or even seen as despicable (such as racism).

The thing is, original intent is also the only thing we have to go by that isn't made up. As much as it can be difficult to nail down original intent, we also know that there is much writing and court opinions about what that was.

You may recall that every time over the last 40 years that a GOP President has nominated a justice to the SCOTUS, there are always questions asked about whether there is respect for stare decisis. And always on the basis of whether they plan to overturn Roe v Wade.

Original intent is stare decisis. Unless the Constitution has been amended. How do we know that a federal agent cannot just stop a random person on the street and detain that person? Easy. That's how it has always been. How do we know that state actors cannot just arrest a random person on the street? Because the 14th amendment said the States have to follow the Constitution, too.

A person cannot be forced to testify against himself. We know that because the Fifth Amendment says it. Only through some perversion and a "times have changed" philosophy would this be capable of destruction through judicial fiat.

"They didn't have automatic rifles when the Second Amendment passed." Correct. And they didn't have e-mail or telephones when the 4th Amendment was passed. Yet the 4th Amendment applies to those, too. Not in spite of the original intent but BECAUSE of the original intent.

Proponents of any other system of interpretation will pick and choose. By definition they have a conclusion they want and then work backwards to create a justification. Constitution says it doesn't allow torture? Well, this is a different time. Nobody water boarded or played "We Built This City" on loudspeakers nonstop for two weeks in a row two hundred years ago. So the Constitution doesn't contemplate that kind of torture.

A living breathing Constitution is natural law. In that case words mean nothing. The Constitution says no. Well, no means maybe. Maybe means yes.

Natural law is a justification for anything. Just ask Pro Prop 8 people. Then ask anti Prop 8 people. Then ask them where natural law is written and agreed.

They can't do it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

brenthutch

Quote

Don't you find it disturbing that the interpretation of the Constitution depends only on the vagaries of 9 politically appointed judges?

Kallend thinks the constitution is unconstitutional. LOL

Having a little comprehension problem today, BH?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

gowlerk

Quote

Don't you find it disturbing that the interpretation of the Constitution depends only on the vagaries of 9 politically appointed judges?

Who would you have interpret it? The Constitution itself created the Supreme Court and gave it this job.

Actually the Supreme Court's power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.

The Constitution contains no statement that a statute passed by Congress and signed by the president can be invalidated, abolished or modified by the Supreme Court. If the Framers had such a power clearly in mind, those who believe in “enumerated powers” must dearly wish they had said so in the document. Except they don’t just dearly wish it. They just go ahead and pretend it’s there, when it isn’t.

There is no record that this was even discussed at the Constitutional Convention.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

***

Quote

Don't you find it disturbing that the interpretation of the Constitution depends only on the vagaries of 9 politically appointed judges?

Who would you have interpret it? The Constitution itself created the Supreme Court and gave it this job.

Actually the Supreme Court's power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.

The Constitution contains no statement that a statute passed by Congress and signed by the president can be invalidated, abolished or modified by the Supreme Court. If the Framers had such a power clearly in mind, those who believe in “enumerated powers” must dearly wish they had said so in the document. Except they don’t just dearly wish it. They just go ahead and pretend it’s there, when it isn’t.

There is no record that this was even discussed at the Constitutional Convention.

Correct. A couple of other interesting things to note.

The Constitution doesn't actually enable the Courts. The Judiciary Act of 1789 did it. And created lower Courts. Congress created the Lower courts because it was entitled to. And Congress may change the makeup, etc.

The second thing. Marbury was interesting because the Supreme Court ruled that Congress exceeded its authority in giving the Supreme Court the power to issues writs of mandamus under original jurisdiction. This the SCOTUS said that Congress cannot pass Unconstitutional laws and the Courts could review that. While at the same time limiting its power to things the Constitution said it could do.

The strand oddities of that case.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

I think the Constitution has stood up remarkably well because it states principles that can almost always be applied, even if the details of the case at hand could never have been imagined by the writers. Your examples of email and automatic rifles are great samples. I think the Constitution (at least as far as civil rights are concerned) is now interpreted in ways that would be shocking to the writers, yet is more true to the principles they put forth. Most of the Founders were slave holders, and were immersed in a society that took for granted the superiority of the "white race", and their personal views were colored (so to speak) by that immersion. It seems a bit funny to argue "original intent" to arrive at a conclusion the Founders would certainly find outrageous (all men are created equal, with women and non-whites included as "men" for example), though I think that conclusion is truer to the principle. Perhaps the Founders were not even aware of the full scope of their "original intent".

I also think some of the most problematic rulings or legal opinions have been rooting in a process of parsing the words to find a way to justify a conclusion that does violence to the plain principle of the Constitution. Convoluted semantic arguments to reconcile mass invasion of privacy by the government are an example. Of course some would argue that the Constitution provides no privacy protection at all, because the word "privacy" is not specifically mentioned. They dismiss the notion that "privacy" is the principle at stake when the Constitution bars search and seizure without a warrant. Scalia dismisses the notion that there is any such a thing as a "right to marriage", as if "the pursuit of happiness" has any meaning when the state gets to choose your life partner (or at least, reject your choice). Yet in earlier rulings he wrote that people would object to public homosexual conduct as a reason for voting to uphold anti-gay laws; this seems to invent a right "to not be offended" that I have never found in my reading of the Constitution.
Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 380]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

Regulation and political agendas are two different things

It is agenda
Not science that drives them

Are you saying that all the information on the health effects of mercury are bogus, made up by "liberal doctors and scientists" over decades just to one day be able to harass poor innocent power plant companies? All the way back in the 1950s those liberal Japanese fabricated Minamata Diseaseso one day the EPA could use it to advance some political agenda?

Quote

Want another example?
Look at the waters of the US regulations set for Aug 1

Misdirection. Why not try just answering the question for once?

What do you mean by "good"? Do you think unregulated dumping of mercury and arsenic into the air is "good"?

Don

rushmc,

Are you ever going to answer the question?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[turtlespeed 226]

GeorgiaDon

***

Quote

Regulation and political agendas are two different things

It is agenda
Not science that drives them

Are you saying that all the information on the health effects of mercury are bogus, made up by "liberal doctors and scientists" over decades just to one day be able to harass poor innocent power plant companies? All the way back in the 1950s those liberal Japanese fabricated Minamata Diseaseso one day the EPA could use it to advance some political agenda?

Quote

Want another example?
Look at the waters of the US regulations set for Aug 1

Misdirection. Why not try just answering the question for once?

What do you mean by "good"? Do you think unregulated dumping of mercury and arsenic into the air is "good"?

Don

rushmc,

Are you ever going to answer the question?

Don

As soon as another poster answers the question I posed about the original 30+ million that were supposed to be insured through obamacare . . . I'm sure he will.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I think the Constitution (at least as far as civil rights are concerned) is now interpreted in ways that would be shocking to the writers, yet is more true to the principles they put forth. Most of the Founders were slave holders, and were immersed in a society that took for granted the superiority of the "white race", and their personal views were colored (so to speak) by that immersion. It seems a bit funny to argue "original intent" to arrive at a conclusion the Founders would certainly find outrageous (all men are created equal, with women and non-whites included as "men" for example), though I think that conclusion is truer to the principle. Perhaps the Founders were not even aware of the full scope of their "original intent".

I had previously explained that Original Intent is fully limited by Amendments. The original intent was that the Constitution could be changed by political process. Thus any original intent that slaves comprised 3/5 vote is shot down by the 13th Amendment. That the States didn't have to follow the Federal Constitution was eliminated by the 14th. The Framers didn't intend for alcohol to be banned. So what? An amendment banned it. Banning alcohol isn't I tended anymore. We know because another amendment repealed it.

Income taxes? Original intent was not allowed. Constitution amended and allowed it. Popular election of Senators? Was specifically not allowed but an amendment made it happen.

There is a system that was set up so that if original intent was no longer workable that it could be eliminated with new intent. But for justices who say "this shouldn't be the law?" That's how you get Assholes like Roy Moore, who the nks the Constitution just doesn't work right for him. So he will interpret it in a novel way that shapes society as he wants it to be.

When the strategy is used by the opponent it's dirty. When used by a friend it is admirable. We judge ourselves and our friends by our intentions, not our acts. We judge other by their acts and not their intentions. Even if everyone is doing the same thing.

I'll look at the act. Roy Moore is an example of using that methodology. Never been done before? That's fine. Do it, anyway. The drafters should have intended it.

Quote

Scalia dismisses the notion that there is any such a thing as a "right to marriage",

I do, too. If you need a license to do it there is no right. Which is why I have a problem not with the outcome but with how it was done. I think it's simple: if a state grants a privilege then it can't discriminate on the basis of class. Gonna give licenses to straight couples? Then you can't discriminate against guys. End of story. If a state decides to abolish marriage, fine. No marriage licenses for gas or straights?

A right to marry necessary involves the lack of need for state oversight. It is unfortunate that rights are mixed so often with privileges. Hence we have people arguing that marriage is a right when it isn't listed and has always been a privilege for which license is necessary to make it de jure. On the other hand, arms are viewed as a privilege for which only a select few should be allowed, even though it is listed as a right.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,119]

>Are you ever going to answer the question?

That's not

realy

his thing

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>Are you ever going to answer the question?

That's not

realy

his thing

I could say that about a few posters here.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun