myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
right wing supreme court right wing activism
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 4141
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:40 pm    Post subject: right wing supreme court right wing activism Reply with quote

Well we have citizens united, again all the right wing moved this to the supreme court and the supreme court passed it. Unlimited money in politics from all. Again saying we have the best democracy that can be bought by the oligarchs.

Making a unprecedented ruling to stop the Florida recount so that time would run out on the ability to re-count as State law mandated re-counts. Again the right wing of the supreme court said this ruling was not to be interpreted as setting a standard like all other ruling ever made by the supreme court. Also for a justice to be involved in this when they have a conflict of interest, ie appointed by the guys father. If that is not conflict of interest what is. There was no damage in having Florida finish their recount, the ony damage occurs when stopping the state law.

We have another Court ruling back that says a corporation has human rights.

Now we have the right wing supreme court setting new precedent on a subject. They just ruled that they would hear another case before it went to the other levels for decisions of lower courts.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/supreme-court-conservatives-block-clean-energy-plan?cid=eml_mra_20160210

Supreme Court conservatives block Clean Energy Plan

Quote:
Much of the political world was focused late yesterday on the New Hampshire presidential primaries, and for good reason: the nation’s future direction will be shaped in large part by who wins the White House.

But away from the Granite State, Americans received a very different kind of reminder about what’s actually at stake in 2016. NBC News’ Pete Williams reported:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked enforcement of the Obama administration’s ambitious new plan for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

The justices granted a plea from 30 states that asked for a temporary hold on the new Clean Energy Plan while the lower courts decide whether the Environmental Protection Agency has the legal authority to impose it.
This was … wait for it … a 5-4 decision. The court’s Republican-appointed conservatives – Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Roberts – agreed to block the energy policy, while the court’s Democratic-appointed center-left justices – Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented.

A New York Times report noted that there is no precedent for the high court taking a step like this: the Supreme Court “had never before granted a request to halt a regulation before review by a federal appeals court.” Jody Freeman, a Harvard law professor and former environmental legal counsel to the Obama administration, described the move as “stunning.”

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 17718

PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SCOTUS Stays EPA Clean Power Plan: The Good News and the Bad

JV DeLong , CONTRIBUTOR
I cover law and regulation.
FOLLOW ON FORBES (7)
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to stay EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) pending final resolution of the appeals by SCOTUS.

The D.C. Circuit had denied a stay in late January, in an order of the “shut up, he explained” style. It said only that “petitioners have not satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending court review,” and added a supporting cite to a case of dubious relevance.

So the immediate Internet reaction to the SCOTUS decision was one of surprise, and, on the conservative side, pleasure. Such a summary reversal of the lower court is unusual, and the Justices gave even less explanation than did the D.C. Circuit, so its reasons remain speculative, especially because the legal arguments are complicated and accessible only to those who have spent their lives studying the complexities of the Clean Air Act and administrative law generally.


The best explanation, or at least the most optimistic, is that five Justices see the EPA for what it is: a corrupt agency that has been captured by Big Green, which is an unholy Bootleggers and Baptists coalition of ideologues, crony socialists, and academic looters. The agency is using a dubious theory of climate change and an aggressive interpretation of the law to justify a huge and unpredictable restructuring of the nation’s electrical generation system, which is sometimes called “the largest and most complex machine ever made,” and which may not survive its collision with EPA.

The agency is also expert at applying Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, especially No. 3 (“Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy”) and No. 4 (“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules”). Administrative law is based on assumptions about the good faith and competence of government agencies. As a result, courts cannot deal with progressive political agencies that will say or do anything to further the narrative and the economic well-being of their clients and political contributors, that have lost any semblance of an internal institutional conscience, and that close ranks to defend even outright fraud. The judges defer to the agency’s factual and scientific conclusions, however fanciful, and place impossible burdens of proof on objectors.

Recommended by Forbes

The Clean Power Plan, 47 States And 560+ Trillion Options

Supreme Court To EPA: Fool Me Once
EPA Ploughs Ahead With $9.6 Billion Mercury Rule, Despite Supreme Court's ...
E&E Legal On The Capture Of EPA
MOST POPULAR Photos: The Richest Person In Every State
+104,936 VIEWS Windows 10 Worst Secret Spins Out Of Control
MOST POPULAR Photos: The 10 Hip-Hop Cash Princes Of 2016

EPA also practices government by fait accompli. In their petition for a stay of the CPP rule, the utilities described the aftermath of a Supreme Court victory they won last year:

The day after [the Supreme] Court ruled . . . that EPA had violated the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) in enacting its rule regulating fossil fuel-fired plants . . . EPA boasted in an official blog post that the Court’s decision was effectively a nullity. Because the rule had not been stayed during the years of litigation, EPA assured its supporters that ‘the majority of power plants are already in compliance or well on their way to compliance.’ Then, in reliance on EPA’s representation that most power plants had already fully complied, the D.C. Circuit responded to this Court’s remand by declining to vacate the rule that this Court had declared unlawful. . . . In short, EPA extracted ‘nearly $10 billion a year’ in compliance from power plants before this Court could even review the rule, . . . and then successfully used that unlawfully-mandated-compliance to keep the rule in place even after this Court declared that the agency had violated the law.

In the CPP litigation, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that EPA had the same game plan in mind – force expensive compliance during the leisurely course of appeal, and then contend that things have become so convoluted that there is no going back. It is the strategy of ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, not just of EPA.

So the good news is that five Justices seem to be on to this game. The bad news is that the Court’s four horsepersons of progressivism (Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg) are either not onto the game, taking at face value all the classic bromides about agency integrity, or – worse – are onto the game and do not care. In either case, they regard it as just ducky for an agency to use ambiguous laws and dodgy fact-finding to impose incredible burdens on the society and the economy.

Two larger lessons should be drawn.The first is to reinforce the extreme importance of the next few Supreme Court appointments. One more progressive Justice could doom all hope of effective judicial supervision of EPA and other captured agencies.

The second lesson is the sad state of administrative law, which remains mired in unrealistic assumptions about agencies, their staffs, and their incentives. An administrative law that never heard of Public Choice theory or Bootleggers and Baptists is, and will continue to be, a travesty.
-------------
Worse yet, Obama's goal is to 1) ignore energy independence and 2) forge ahead with his promises to a) kill the coal industry and b) spend/print unlimited trillions to fight THE computer model selected from a dozen options BECAUSE it supports his AGWA agenda. (Never mind that its accuracy has already been disproved.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 4141
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

here is energy independence... it is amazing this is a pilot project and it is so simple, could have been done 30 years ago.

why would anyone not want to do this vs use fossil fuels.

this one is in boulder city Nevada and is scalable. I did a cost projection that is we used this at a present cost not takinging into consideration manufacturing costs would drop in volume vs a pilot project. Well if we spent the 1 trillion of the iraq war we would have free electric to every american family for the next 3-100 years. Now that it is estimated to be 3 trillion that means every business would have free electric and every car too.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OLjooHY1VA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMWIgwvbrcM

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 5680

PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Millions of acres of natural habitat destroyed so you can turn on the AC? Millions of fried birds? Give me black gold, Texas tea.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 4141
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MalibuGuru wrote:
Millions of acres of natural habitat destroyed so you can turn on the AC? Millions of fried birds? Give me black gold, Texas tea.



you have to be about the dumbest of the dumb.... you are certainly a right winger... the one you see in the picture does not harm birds. But bird brains like you would probably kill yourself because it does not harm the environment like burning shiiiite.


Now even the tower solar concentrating plants which are different I believe have changed what they were doing to minimize the bird deaths. Initially when the plant was not active they had the mirrors aiming near the tower, maybe above and the birds were flying above it getting fried, so they changed the aiming when not used to be away from concentrating areas. When active and heating the birds seem to stay away because they feel the heat when approaching, like feeling the heat of a forest fire i would assume for natural defense.

Next it is so funny to hear an oil man concerned about the environment... thanks for making me laugh today... you friggen environmental disaster.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 17718

PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't understand why "they" can't clean up coal plant emissions, considering the economic potential of the industry over the next few centuries. At the very least, put it in a BIG bottle, extract anything useful or neutral, bind and compress what's left into a stable pellet, and stack it in the boondocks (lord knows we have beaucoup boondocks). That's the process for cleaning up Hanford's radioactive waste, so surely it should be feasible for freaking smoke. Hell, shipping it into space would be a better solution than all the damned wars over oil -- the Carter Doctrine -- those centuries would see.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 4141
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
I can't understand why "they" can't clean up coal plant emissions, considering the economic potential of the industry over the next few centuries. At the very least, put it in a BIG bottle, extract anything useful or neutral, bind and compress what's left into a stable pellet, and stack it in the boondocks (lord knows we have beaucoup boondocks). That's the process for cleaning up Hanford's radioactive waste, so surely it should be feasible for freaking smoke. Hell, shipping it into space would be a better solution than all the damned wars over oil -- the Carter Doctrine -- those centuries would see.


too funny that is what is the issue with Obama taking action via the EPA, yes there are technologies that can do as you say and that is what the EPA was going to mandate till the supre right wingers stepped in. Yes it would add a cost to make the electric maybe a cent or two? Which is huge huge money. But do you want any american or human to live downwind from mercury, lead, and much more emissions?

Funny to see you not knowing this is a complete about face from your other post.

IE the supreme court is a bunch of activist hating a clean america...
BTW the oil issues escalation was under Nixon and Kissinger when they wanted the shah of Iran to buy so many american weapons to help their defence contractor friends. The shah destabilized oil prices to pay for his weapons of torture that he usd on his own people. Shah was also helped into power by the CIA before Nixon.


read this newspaper clip it is very good...
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=932&dat=19790604&id=MfkOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qoIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6932,247973&hl=en


and


http://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/books/the-oil-kings-how-nixon-courted-the-shah

Quote:
The oil-rich shah allied himself with the West in order to transform Iran into a modern power. That won him attention in Washington, as did his instant accord with Nixon. They were "essentially two lonely and insecure men who found relief in the isolation their high positions afforded", Cooper writes, in one of many asides that make these events accessible and compelling.

By late 1969, Nixon was so friendly with the shah that he had granted the leader his own special oil quota. In exchange, the shah pledged to spend every cent of those additional oil revenues on US military and intelligence hardware. This worried Nixon's aides. "It was one thing to fly the flag for the West," Cooper writes, "another to arm it to face down Iraq, India and regional rebellions, pacifying a vast swath of the Middle East and Indian Ocean. Rearmament on the scale proposed by the shah," Cooper adds, "had the potential to bankrupt Iran."

Still, Nixon persisted, advising Iran's lead diplomat, Ardeshir Zahedi to "tell the shah you can push [us] as much as you want [on oil prices] ..." In short, the shah could "raise oil prices at will and pressure western oil companies and consumers" - all via a back channel implemented without cost assessment or risk analysis. Who cared what happened to the real Iranians not benefiting from oil dollars? The US had its precious outpost in the Middle East.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 17718

PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

baja-human wrote:
Funny to see you not knowing this is a complete about face from your other post.

Very simple: I consider both sides of the issues, and take a side only after examining sufficient facts. I'd really like to know WHY coal can't be cleaned up, and hoped you might offer some explanation.

I guess not, so you can crawl back in your hole now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 8010

PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not that Isobars will read this, or will make any concerted effort to understand coal economics, but there are indeed techniques for scrubbing CO2 out of coal. But they are expensive, and coal is already dying because it is not competitive. Those who think that industry would not fight CO2 scrubbing, as they have the regulation of particulate emissions, belong to the Blind Lemon denial club.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 4141
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wow is the writer of that above one interesting..... read his bio

Talking about right wing criminals look what Nixon tried to do.... oh and Nixon was never put on trial.. is there a statue of limitations on conspiracy to kill? where is that liberal media talking about the shah and nixon more and Nixon trying to kill his opponents. Oh thats right Bill and Hilary big crooks even special prosecutor 2 times partisan right wing wacos. oh for losing 30 or 60 thousand in a land deal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Anderson_(columnist)
Quote:
In 1972 Anderson was the target of an assassination plot in the White House. Two Nixon administration conspirators admitted under oath they plotted to poison Anderson on orders from senior White House aide Charles Colson.[14] White House "plumbers" G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt met with a CIA operative to discuss the possibilities, including drugging Anderson with LSD, poisoning his aspirin bottle, or staging a fatal mugging.[15] The plot was aborted when the plotters were arrested for the Watergate break-in. Nixon had long been angry with Anderson, blaming Anderson's election eve story about a secret loan from Howard Hughes to Nixon's brother[16] for Nixon's loss of the 1960 presidential election.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 1 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group