# SCOTUS, 5-4, puts stay on EPA climate change regulations



## asher (Feb 10, 2016)

I'll let you guess how that split breaks out, and your first two don't count.

Take action against possibly the greatest threat we've ever faced? Nah, let's punch some hippies.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Halts Obama's Sweeping Climate Change Plan

I try really, really hard to never wish ill upon people, but God do we need Scalia Alito and Thomas off the Court as soon as possible. Kennedy too.


----------



## tedtan (Feb 10, 2016)

I saw that and was quite disappointed. You'd think people at that level would be better able to critically reason, but nope.


----------



## asher (Feb 10, 2016)

tedtan said:


> I saw that and was quite disappointed. You'd think people at that level would be better able to critically reason, but nope.



They've demonstrated that they're fully capable of critically reasoning whether something is for the benefit of their highly conservative partisan ideologies.


----------



## tedtan (Feb 10, 2016)

That they have. I'm just tired of the ideology overriding the real world facts.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Feb 11, 2016)

This is why we need to elect Bernie and then hope a few of these windbags die so we can get some sane people in there.


----------



## asher (Feb 11, 2016)

I really can't imagine Hillary being very different than him on potential SCOTUS nominees, though I suppose it depends if we can retake the Senate. But yeah.


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 11, 2016)

I'll just leave this here and let you ponder just how Congress and SCOTUS seems to always vote against EPA regulations...

Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire | Rolling Stone

[Disclaimer - IMO RS is a sh!t mag with mostly sh!t stories, but the politics section, especially Matt Taibbi, can be quite good at times.]


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Feb 11, 2016)

asher said:


> I really can't imagine Hillary being very different than him on potential SCOTUS nominees, though I suppose it depends if we can retake the Senate. But yeah.



Hilary's wouldnt pick anyone who would also overturn Citizen's United. She is just another cog in the system.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 12, 2016)

Yeah, the more I learn about Hillary the less I like her and before I even knew about all the potential candidates I was totally in her camp. I 'like' her better than the GOP alternatives, but that isn't exactly saying much honestly. My vote doesn't really count in my state anyhow so if Bernie doesn't get the nomination I'm voting green party for sure, to show my overall disdain for the establishment and the DNC (and support for the alternative, which could help their future funding).

Given the many pro business things to make it through SCOTUS this last decade that I've heard about I'm not honestly surprised by this result.


----------



## celticelk (Feb 12, 2016)

leftyguitarjoe said:


> Hilary's wouldnt pick anyone who would also overturn Citizen's United. She is just another cog in the system.



[citation needed]


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Feb 12, 2016)

celticelk said:


> [citation needed]



[her entire political career and campaign contributor list]


----------



## celticelk (Feb 12, 2016)

leftyguitarjoe said:


> [her entire political career and campaign contributor list]



Weak. Clinton was campaigning for health care reform in the '90s as First Lady. (I'm old enough to actually remember those years.) Her voting record in the Senate is not substantively different from Sanders'. Arguments that she's actually less progressive (as opposed to just more practical) than Sanders need substance, not just accusations.


----------



## asher (Feb 12, 2016)

celticelk said:


> Weak. Clinton was campaigning for health care reform in the '90s as First Lady. (I'm old enough to actually remember those years.) Her voting record in the Senate is not substantively different from Sanders'. Arguments that she's actually less progressive (as opposed to just more practical) than Sanders need substance, not just accusations.



And to be completely honest, Citizen's United at this point is far less important than maintaining voting rights, protecting labor and civil rights, and climate change. Especially the last one.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 12, 2016)

celticelk said:


> Weak. Clinton was campaigning for health care reform in the '90s as First Lady. (I'm old enough to actually remember those years.) Her voting record in the Senate is not substantively different from Sanders'. Arguments that she's actually less progressive (as opposed to just more practical) than Sanders need substance, not just accusations.



Where she differs is quite significant and she used her role as first lady as a buffer quite frequently. The Clinton's pushed through a lot of regulation in the name of 'compromise' that pretty much led to the financial crisis IMO. She was the strongest fighter for NAFTA in the 90's and a large reason why it passed (the second erosion of middle class jobs). She sold guns to questionable groups as Secretary of State. She's extremely inconsistent on many issues and anytime she needed to boost her image she'd make foreign affair trips that accomplished nothing while making up stories to make them seem far more dangerous than it ever was for the sake of publicity (although not unique to just her as far as BS goes). Her views as first lady and as a true politician are almost night and day at times, especially as it pertains to Wall Street. Now consider how the DNC is behaving, and has behaved for the last 10-15 years, and the fact that all these people she's supposedly going to screw over as president are backing her election (including the establishment) and it's hard to believe anything she says at face value. She really isn't very progressive exactly because she is kind of practical when it comes to her political career. She swings her views/values with the times, hence her flip flop on gay rights and other such things. That doesn't exactly leave many thinking she'll do the things she promises, and the only reason she's promising any of them at all currently is because her opponent is popular and making those same promises.

I have a love/hate view on the Clinton presidency, but ultimately I don't attribute our nations financial success to them, but more the internet. The policies the Clinton's passed and/or let through had some damning ramifications on the state of our economy, which allowed banks to get 'too big to fail' (well bigger at the very least).

Most Sander supporters don't necessarily believe he will accomplish all or even most of what he promises. Intent is equally important when picking a leader because it means even if he can't successfully execute his programs he is at least definitely looking out for the peoples interest (which can be proven by his political and personal track record). I can't say the same for Hillary. She's always looked out for herself first and foremost and anyone who's willing to give her enough money. Just listen to past and present speeches by Hillary. It's pretty damning all on its own.

I don't think Republican's would do better by any means, but when you put aside social issues the difference between the two established parties is almost nonexistent behind closed doors. Hillary voted for us to go to war, she went to bat for Wall Street, the Democrats agreed that the banks were too big to fail. These are hardly progressive notions. The right uses religion to control their base and the left uses civil rights issues, which are absolutely important, but no one notices the juggling bear on the unicycle. IMO it's time that either the party policies for the two leading parties change or we get new parties all together. Democrats are not progressive at all, but I'm digressing at this point.


----------



## asher (Feb 12, 2016)

flint757 said:


> I don't think Republican's would do better by any means, but when you put aside social issues the difference between the two established parties is almost nonexistent behind closed doors.



Oh my god.

It's 2016 now. This is so completely untrue. Have the last four terms of Presidents taught us nothing?


----------



## flint757 (Feb 12, 2016)

asher said:


> Oh my god.
> 
> It's 2016 now. This is so completely untrue. Have the last four terms of Presidents taught us nothing?



Uhhh, not really. Still in war, still doing drone strikes, banks were bailed out, tax rates haven't changed. Need I go on?

[EDIT]

Clinton is more of the same. If we need a woman candidate I'd much prefer Warren or Stein.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 12, 2016)

My views align almost completely with the green party so you're going to have a hard time convincing me that Democrats are actually progressive when even the rest of the world considers you right of center.


----------



## asher (Feb 12, 2016)

Sorry, tax rates what now?

In 2013, the Top 1% Will Pay Their Highest Total Tax Rate Since 1979 - The Atlantic

https://newrepublic.com/article/116064/2013-financial-reform-went-way-better-anyone-expected


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Feb 12, 2016)

Hooray for the inevitable! If anybody wants to find me, I'll be up in the cockpit of my rocket ship waiting to blast off


----------



## flint757 (Feb 12, 2016)

asher said:


> Sorry, tax rates what now?
> 
> In 2013, the Top 1% Will Pay Their Highest Total Tax Rate Since 1979 - The Atlantic
> 
> https://newrepublic.com/article/116064/2013-financial-reform-went-way-better-anyone-expected



And to those 1%ers it means almost nothing because most of their money comes from capital gains, which last I checked are still taxed excessively low.

In any case, you took umbrage with one sentence from my post. Do you have anything constructive to add other than disbelief? You're cherry picking from both of my posts with what I can only assume are the two things you can disagree with and even eliminating taxes from the equation, which the system is still incredibly regressive, the other things I mentioned still apply. Even the healthcare reform was less than stellar. Yes, that wasn't all one parties fault that it got hollowed out, but I wasn't 100% on board to begin with for the market idea (I did like the actual health policies implemented on existing health insurance policies). We needed a single payer system, not what we got, or what we intended to get, when entering Obama's first presidency. Unemployment went down and that definitely helps improve the Democrats position, but again it's a hollow gesture when the jobs people had versus what they got when reentering the work force was a heavy loss in pay. Again, not solely Democrats fault, or the politicians in general, since big business has been allowed for the last 50 years to do whatever the hell they please (outsourcing jobs and sub-par pay/benefits in a lot of cases). The Democratic party, despite being one of the two big parties, has done little to resolve this either. Both parties suck; One just happens to suck a little less. 

I'm aware how the system works though and because we have a first to past the post voting system I have to vote for the party that gets as close as possible to my views; without a runoff voting system 3rd parties don't have a shot and everyone has a very self defeating mindset about 3rd parties anyhow, making it incredibly unlikely that they'd win. The Democrats at least take care of social issues and pretend to dislike big business/war, which is far better than the GOP's screw the public, only business/war/patriotism mindset, but it has definitely always been a lesser of two evils argument for myself. Hillary is just more of the same. Even if I pretend that she's 100% committed and actually intent on doing what she says (most of which a president can't actually do), does anyone actually believe that the GOP is going to treat her any different than Obama? Have y'all heard what they think of her?

[EDIT]

The two links you posted are steps in the right direction, I'm by no means discounting that btw.


----------



## Mordacain (Feb 12, 2016)

celticelk said:


> Weak. Clinton was campaigning for health care reform in the '90s as First Lady. (I'm old enough to actually remember those years.) Her voting record in the Senate is not substantively different from Sanders'. Arguments that she's actually less progressive (as opposed to just more practical) than Sanders need substance, not just accusations.



Well, here's a brief list and explanations of the votes themselves: http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...mples-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-hol/

In terms of the short list of Hillary Clinton's votes / stances I (and most non-neoliberals) find anti-progressive:



Support of the Iraq war
Support of Patriot Act
Repealing Glass-Steagall
Support of TARP
Support of DOMA
Support of TPP
Support of Keystone Pipeline
Then there's the obvious problems with her flip-flopping on issues when it is politically convenient - most recently Keystone, TPP & DOMA


I will grant that on gun control she is a little better than Bernie as of her proposals right now, but I have no confidence that what she campaigns on is what she will try and accomplish once in office.


Suspicion of a person's motives is the unfortunate natural consequence of when that person consistently changes their positions to whatever appears to be the majority opinion.

I might not agree with all of Sander's positions, but I have no doubt that he is sincere because every position has been consistent throughout his life.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Feb 12, 2016)

asher said:


> And to be completely honest, Citizen's United at this point is far less important than maintaining voting rights, protecting labor and civil rights, and climate change. Especially the last one.



You may already know this, but Bernie's core thesis (as I understand it) is that the latter of those issues can't be effectively changed without first addressing the former.

While I see where you're coming from, I can also see from Bernie's perspective and why campaign finance and economic reform could be a viable first step in allowing for more effective change in other issues. Especially issues which affect the corporations with large investments in the political process- I.E. the fossil fuel industry and climate change.


----------



## Mordacain (Feb 12, 2016)

JPhoenix19 said:


> You may already know this, but Bernie's core thesis (as I understand it) is that the latter of those issues can't be effectively changed without first addressing the former.
> 
> While I see where you're coming from, I can also see from Bernie's perspective and why campaign finance and economic reform could be a viable first step in allowing for more effective change in other issues. Especially issues which affect the corporations with large investments in the political process- I.E. the fossil fuel industry and climate change.



Exactly. We need only point to the DNC quietly removing the ban on PAC donations today for further verification of the need for campaign finance reform at all levels.

While Citizens United may or may not prove effective in determining the outcome of the presidency it has been absolutely effective in determining outcomes at the state and local level and we've seen the results of that - a senate and congress that can simply drag its heels in and halt any and all progress when they so choose.


----------



## The Hiryuu (Feb 13, 2016)

If only this vote could've happened a few days later.


----------



## StevenC (Feb 13, 2016)

asher said:


> I try really, really hard to never wish ill upon people, but God do we need Scalia Alito and Thomas off the Court as soon as possible. Kennedy too.



What have you done?


----------



## asher (Feb 13, 2016)

StevenC said:


> What have you done?



... jesus 

Man. It's undeniably a good thing, but I can't even be happy about it, because he died. Even if that was the only way he was getting off the court...


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 13, 2016)

asher said:


> I try really, really hard to never wish ill upon people, but God do *we need Scalia* Alito and Thomas *off the Court as soon as possible.* Kennedy too.





Are... are you a wizard?


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 15, 2016)

asher said:


> ... jesus
> 
> Man. It's undeniably a good thing, but I can't even be happy about it, because he died. Even if that was the only way he was getting off the court...



Any chance on you wishing a million bucks for me? I could go for not being always broke. 


But seriously though, even if it isn't the way I wanted him off the bench, I'm glad that man can't use our judicial system to trod on women and minorities with his applesauce jiggerypokery.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 15, 2016)

I didn't even know he was a Texan, but it makes sense given his record. If they are crazy and politicians it is usually a safe bet that they are Texan. Given our gerrymandered districts it'll never leave Republican hands making it a safe place for outlandish political notions. 

Also:

Scalia Was Murdered, and the State of Texas Just Destroyed all the Evidence | GOVERNMENT SLAVES

This is hilarious conspiracy theory propaganda.


----------



## ferret (Feb 15, 2016)

Yeah it's all over the place already. Obama murdered Scalia because Congress is already in a recess, so Obama can just appoint someone and usher in the christian death camps.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Feb 15, 2016)

Drudge Report is apparently running with that angle as well.


----------



## celticelk (Feb 15, 2016)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Drudge Report is apparently running with that angle as well.



You say that like it's a surprise.


----------



## MFB (Feb 15, 2016)

flint757 said:


> I didn't even know he was a Texan, but it makes sense given his record. If they are crazy and politicians it is usually a safe bet that they are Texan. Given our gerrymandered districts it'll never leave Republican hands making it a safe place for outlandish political notions.
> 
> Also:
> 
> ...



No place else I'd trust for my gov't news than "govtslaves.info"


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Feb 22, 2016)

ferret said:


> Yeah it's all over the place already. Obama murdered Scalia because Congress is already in a recess, so Obama can just appoint someone and usher in the christian death camps.



No, we've already established that asher murdered Scalia with a wierd internet voodoo curse.


----------



## asher (Feb 23, 2016)

JPhoenix19 said:


> No, we've already established that asher murdered Scalia with a wierd internet voodoo curse.



Fate works in mysterious ways...


----------

