The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[ButchPlz]

That he may be a racist doesn't mean his comment isn't true. I'm not necessarily saying it's true, but the racist label is a mutually exclusive issue in regards to his comments on other unrelated issue

Explain to all of us how it's true.

 

[utvolpj]

That he may be a racist doesn't mean his comment isn't true. I'm not necessarily saying it's true, but the racist label is a mutually exclusive issue in regards to his comments on other unrelated issues

He's a crook stealing money. Not sure he's the one to pass judgment

 

[FLVOL_79]

Has that ever worked? Hollywood actor says they’ll leave and never do when the opposition is elected.

Nah. The left is always all talk. They never put their money where their phallic holster is.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

He's a crook stealing money. Not sure he's the one to pass judgment

I addressed that in my post and you didn't get it. That's cool. Because you're a moderator, I'm not going to give you any s**t over your stupid post

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

Explain to all of us how it's true.

You obviously didn't read, "I'm not necessarily saying it's true". It's on the record. I don't need you to explain to me how you don't understand. I, sort of, already knew I would get such a dumbed downed response

 

[utvolpj]

I addressed that in my post and you didn't get it. That's cool. Because you're a moderator, I'm not going to give you any s**t over your stupid post

You addressed racist not the fact he's a crook. He had no leg to stand on here

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

You addressed racist not the fact he's a crook. He had no leg to stand on here

Of course he doesn't. I agree. How we choose to judge others is a personal choice. Regardless, it doesn't mean his comment is false because he's tainted. Others more worthy have made similar comments. The SC is a joke now

 

[utvolpj]

Of course he doesn't. I agree. How we choose to judge others is a personal choice. Regardless, it doesn't mean his comment is false because he's tainted. Others more worthy have made similar comments. The SC is a joke now

No he's judged by the law. What he said about the SC is simply the opinion of a crook.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

No he's judged by the law. What he said about the SC is simply the opinion of a crook.

Ok

 

[85SugarVol]

Of course he doesn't. I agree. How we choose to judge others is a personal choice. Regardless, it doesn't mean his comment is false because he's tainted. Others more worthy have made similar comments. The SC is a joke now

So you’re defending the words of a known insider trading cheat, because you’re upset about a Court decision?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Except that the President can now send Delta after you for what you post on VN.

Hell yeah. (Ain't she a sexy beast? LOL)

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

That he may be a racist doesn't mean his comment isn't true. I'm not necessarily saying it's true, but the racist label is a mutually exclusive issue in regards to his comments on other unrelated issues

What does the word 'racist' even mean anymore? The left calls anyone that doesn't subscribe to their agenda a racist, or Hitler, or liar, or homophobe (that one always makes me chuckle a little), or my favorite "slur"... MAGA. I'm sure there is a talking points list somewhere that the MSM grabs onto when told. Now I'm sure there are a lot more but those are the ones that pop to mind first.

 

[LadyVolette]

Nah. The left is always all talk. They never put their money where their phallic holster is.

Exactly., they threaten to leave every election or every situation where they don’t get their way, but nobody would really care if they did leave.. byeee!

 

[jmacvols1]

Chevron Deference?

 

[hog88]

Chevron Deference?

I doubt this would fall under that.

 

[jmacvols1]

I doubt this would fall under that.

Why?

 

[hog88]

Why?

IMO this is a decision that falls withing the BLMs congressional mandate. They aren't making up new rules or regulations, that being said it appears that the BLM is ignoring the law passed in in the 80s and a court should rule against them for that but I don't believe Chevron would play a part.

 

[LouderVol]

Someone was posting yesterday or Monday that the Supreme Court ruling will affect admissibility of evidence in the form of testimony from government officials and I criticized that as an incorrect read and irrational.

My apologies. Not going to go find it but you were correct and I was wrong. That holding is alarming and seems to be designed to undermine specifically the Trump cases. I don't know who else is going to know about a President's intent than other officials. Again, this seems designed to help Trump, specifically.

it helps all of them. Dementia Joe could get away with anything, or someone using his powers, as he has already been ruled mentally incompetent, he probably isn't even liable for the "intent" of any of his actions. official or not.

 

[LouderVol]

Yep - I'm sure the justices were huddled around thinking what do we have to add to help Trump; nevermind it will set precedent for future POTI

POTI as the plural of POTUS?

 

[LouderVol]

the Supreme Court never belonged to the people. the ONLY thing they should belong to is the US Constitution.

anything more or less is a sellout, and yes that means to the people too.

 

[jmacvols1]

IMO this is a decision that falls withing the BLMs congressional mandate. They aren't making up new rules or regulations, that being said it appears that the BLM is ignoring the law passed in in the 80s and a court should rule against them for that but I don't believe Chevron would play a part.

I hope you are wrong for it should be Congress passing these rules/laws and not unelected far left radical climate zealots. Hopefully state AGs or private citizens can file lawsuits to stop this.

Congress should UNDO this one as they have undone other blms

Audubon Denounces Congressional Action to Undo BLM Rule Elevating Conservation on Public Lands

“This legislation is an end-run around how westerners themselves would like to see these lands managed.”

www.audubon.org

I did find this:

What the downfall of Chevron deference would mean for energy and climate regulations - Washington Examiner

A looming Supreme Court ruling threatens many of President Joe Biden's energy and climate rules.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

quote:
"Many other rulemakings authored by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department could also be at risk. This includes the Bureau of Land Management’s public lands rule, which is meant to add conservation to the approved list of lease activities under its so-called “multiple use framework” for public lands — effectively putting it on the same footing as fossil fuel production or mining.

The BLM rule is one many legal experts view as vulnerable, depending on how the court rules on Chevron, Tina Van Bockern, a partner at the law firm Holland and Hart, told the Washington Examiner.

“If Chevron deference is gone, how is a court going to look at the challenges to BLM’s claim that it can now lease public lands for what many view as non-use?” Van Bockern said.

“If a court is looking at the Federal Land Policy and Management Act anew, without any deference to BLM’s interpretation of what FLPMA says, then I think it’s going to be hard for BLM to defend its reading in making lands off-limits or authorizing non-use,” she added."

And I found this:

North Slope Borough sues Bureau of Land Management over taking away NPR-A potential

The North Slope Borough filed suit to challenge the final rule for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska that was made by the Biden Administration. The borough said the Bureau of Land Management, by making the NPR-A off limits to oil and gas development, did not meaningfully consult with the...

mustreadalaska.com

quote:
"The North Slope Borough filed suit to challenge the final rule for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska that was made by the Biden Administration.

The borough said the Bureau of Land Management, by making the NPR-A off limits to oil and gas development, did not meaningfully consult with the tribes in the area or the borough.

“The rule would significantly and irrevocably harm the North Slope’s right to self-determination and ability to provide essential services for residents. This suit is filed alongside the complaints of the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat and the State of Alaska, demonstrating the unity of North Slope communities and Alaskans in opposing the BLM’s unjust and unilateral action to harm the livelihoods of the residents of the North Slope,” the borough explained in a press statement."

In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper, which removed what is known as the Chevron Deference, the North Slope Borough is taking proactive steps to incorporate this precedent into its regulatory framework.

“By aligning our policies with this landmark decision, we aim to ensure that our administrative actions and interpretations of ambiguous statutes are carried out with a heightened level of judicial scrutiny. This approach underscores our commitment to transparency, legal integrity, and the protection of our community’s rights and resources. Furthermore, the Borough remains steadfast in its adherence to NEPA and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, ensuring that environmental and economic impacts are thoroughly assessed and that small entities are considered in the rule-making process,” the borough said.

The lawsuit follows one filed by the State of Alaska, which makes a similar case, saying the feds had not consulted with affected parties, and that the agency had exceeded its congressional authorization."

 

[85SugarVol]

IMO this is a decision that falls withing the BLMs congressional mandate. They aren't making up new rules or regulations, that being said it appears that the BLM is ignoring the law passed in in the 80s and a court should rule against them for that but I don't believe Chevron would play a part.

How durable are these administrative decrees?

Can the next administration just come in and open it right back up again?

 

[hog88]

How durable are these administrative decrees?

Can the next administration just come in and open it right back up again?

My guess is that yes, a new administration could open it back up just like Biden killed Keystone.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor’s bodyguard shoots would-be carjacker outside her home​

A deputy US Marshal shot a suspected carjacker who pulled a gun on two marshals guarding Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s home in Washington, DC, officials said.

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor’s bodyguards shoot would-be carjacker outside her home

This is just the latest in a series of high profile carjackings of federal agents and VIPs in the nation’s capital.

nypost.com

 

[ButchPlz]

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor’s bodyguard shoots would-be carjacker outside her home​

A deputy US Marshal shot a suspected carjacker who pulled a gun on two marshals guarding Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s home in Washington, DC, officials said.

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor’s bodyguards shoot would-be carjacker outside her home

This is just the latest in a series of high profile carjackings of federal agents and VIPs in the nation’s capital.

nypost.com

Standard DC events.

Also, reminder that the political elites get to have armed protection but you get the privilege of being killed for your property by some low-IQ knuckledragger.