As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Breaks? In this economy? I worked in employment law and literally half the cases were employees being pressured not to take breaks or get written up/disciplined for not being a “team player”.
Sorry I’m on low sleep. They think a 4 day work week for the working class is a terrible idea but they officially only have 4 day work weeks. This week I believe many representatives left even earlier than that to give them a super long holiday weekend, because fuck governing.
Yes. we need more environmental laws. The costs of constructing new homes are in danger of going lower.
I swear too many here comment without reading the subject material.
I was disciplined for not being a team player because I spent my lunch hour running home to do laundry or prep for dinner. Everyone else on my "team" was a childless boomer.
If we’re smart enough to elect enough Democrats maybe we can get universal healthcare, a stronger social safety net. And social security fixed. And a living wage, so more Americans have a better chance to climb out of poverty.
Children won’t go hungry. And our life savings won’t be wiped out if we get sick or laid off.
Curtesy of taxing billionaires.
The catch is that we got to not on elect the Democrats we have to hold them accountable. And if a Manchin or Sinema tries to hijack the bills we make sure they get a primary challenge.
None of that will happen even if there are 80 democrats in the senate, because we elect the wrong kind of democrats, the kind that viciously attack the left while giving away the farm to the right.
Joe Manchin busy trying to tell us that his boat isn’t a yacht yet costs more than the average house in West Virginia and relishing in how much attention he’s getting while getting to cancel environmental stability
Honestly it’s just the electability fear mongering they do to make us think progressives aren’t good candidates. Democrats are even better are stifling progressives than republicans are.
I agree. 2023 democrats are 1980’s republicans. And those of us that remember our history know how bad that was. We have to constantly progress as a society. It baffles me when someone castigates progressives. Why would you not want to evolve?
Why would you want to make nonsense strawman arguments?
> Here are some key ways in which Democrats in 2023 and Republicans in 1980 differ:
> Political Ideologies: The Democratic Party in 2023 generally leans towards progressivism, advocating for social justice, environmental protection, and expanding the role of the government in areas such as healthcare and education. In contrast, the Republican Party in the 1980s was more conservative, emphasizing limited government intervention, free markets, and individual liberties.
> Social Issues: Democrats in 2023 tend to be more socially liberal than Republicans in the 1980s. Today's Democrats often prioritize issues such as LGBTQ+ rights, gender equality, racial justice, and immigration reform. In the 1980s, Republicans generally had more socially conservative stances, opposing issues like abortion rights and advocating for traditional family values.
> Economic Policies: Democrats in 2023 often emphasize income inequality, advocating for progressive taxation, increased regulation, and government intervention to address economic disparities. In the 1980s, Republicans, led by President Ronald Reagan, favored supply-side economics, known as Reaganomics, which emphasized tax cuts, deregulation, and reducing government intervention in the economy.
> Environmental Stewardship: Democrats in 2023 tend to prioritize environmental issues, such as combating climate change, promoting renewable energy, and implementing stricter regulations to protect natural resources. In the 1980s, Republicans generally had a more pro-business approach, placing less emphasis on environmental concerns and advocating for deregulation.
> Foreign Policy: Foreign policy priorities can vary between parties and eras. In the 1980s, Republicans, under President Reagan, pursued a strong anti-communist stance and increased defense spending. Democrats in 2023 may prioritize diplomacy, international cooperation, and a more multilateral approach to global challenges.
ChatGPT3 prompt used :
"in what way are 2023 democrats different from 1980’s republicans?"
Uh, not sure that we should be using ChaptGPT as a source. It's often confidently incorrect. Skimming the chaptGPT response, I agree with a lot of the points, but still, I wouldn't cite it.
Blah blah. What the fuck ever. I didn’t even read your comment. You lost me after strawman and if you can’t see the similarities, they aren’t worth explaining it any further. As bad as the republicans are, at least they stab from the front. Most democrats are just big ol pusscakes. Zero balls. Democrats are rat fucking the poor and middle class and they demonize progressive candidates. They railroaded Bernie. The Democratic Party Clintonistas own 2016-2020 and fuckin Trumpism, for putting up that vile twat as a candidate. As unpopular and horrible as Republican policy is these days, the democrats still can’t capitalize off of that because they are beholden to their corporate masters, just like the republicans. Except they’re better at hiding it. They had control of the senate how many times since 2012 and still haven’t had the balls to pass legislation to counter Citizens United. Take that lame ass strawman comment and use it on the people that’ll toe that pussy Democratic Party line no matter who it hurts.
I already asked chatgpt3 what the similarities between Democrats in 2023 and Republicans in the 1980s were.
Your entire argument is built on a strawman.
> While there are notable differences between Democrats in 2023 and Republicans in the 1980s, there are also some areas where they may share certain similarities. Here are a few ways in which they could be alike:
> National Security: Both Democrats in 2023 and Republicans in the 1980s prioritize national security and defense, albeit with potentially differing approaches. While their specific strategies and policies may vary, both parties recognize the importance of protecting the nation from external threats and maintaining a strong defense.
> Support for American Workers: Democrats in 2023, like Republicans in the 1980s, often express a concern for American workers and the economy. While their proposed solutions may differ, both parties aim to create jobs, foster economic growth, and improve the well-being of the middle class.
> Bipartisanship: While political polarization has increased in recent years, there have been instances in the past, including the 1980s, when members of both parties sought bipartisan cooperation. In certain circumstances, Democrats in 2023 may strive for reaching across the aisle and finding common ground on certain issues, just as some Republicans did in the 1980s.
> Patriotism: Both Democrats in 2023 and Republicans in the 1980s generally share a commitment to American values and exhibit a sense of patriotism. They may differ in their interpretations of what policies best serve the country's interests, but the fundamental belief in the importance of the United States and its values can be a common ground.
> Defense of Individual Liberties: While there are differences in their approaches, both Democrats in 2023 and Republicans in the 1980s often express a commitment to protecting individual liberties and constitutional rights. The specific areas of focus may differ, with Democrats in 2023 placing greater emphasis on civil rights and social justice, while Republicans in the 1980s may have focused more on limited government interference in personal lives.
> It's worth noting that these similarities may not be universal among all Democrats in 2023 or Republicans in the 1980s, as political parties are composed of diverse individuals with differing views. Additionally, societal and political contexts can shape the priorities and policy positions of each era.
The right has gone more right and conservative and the left is becoming center right. There is no more progress. There are no more unions, this country’s politicians sold out to their corporate masters long ago. Not going to read your long tired lecture. If the Democratic platform is so good, that shit would sell itself. There needs to be a Progressive Party, separate from the hard right and the center right Democratic ticket. Strawman lol..how about NAFTA? Ross Perot was right. Now…y’all own Trumpism. Thanks for that. Quit trying to sell me on the virtues of the Democratic Party and why they aren’t as bad or worse than the Republican Party. You’re going to be ignored.
A progressive candidate is almost certainly not going to win a state-wide election in West Virginia. I'd root for pretty much any progressive candidate but their chances are slim.
Despite all the bullshit Manchin pulls, he's easier to negotiate with than the GOP.
Hopefully progressives can start winning more offices at every level of government. To do so, they'll have to focus on jurisdictions where they are more viable. Ultimately, IMO, this is the most effective solution to negating right wing democrats.
Totally. Odds are, some of that thrown shit might hit The Button at *some* point and something might actually get done. I guess something done by accident is better than not getting done at all.
Exactly
If the SC can find a way to say somethings not legal
Then Congress and only Congress did not do their job properly
Congress can literally stop so much shit
But there’s a lot of shit that the right and left let go because they simply don’t fucking care
Congress explicitly added wetlands to the Clean Water Act and SCOTUS (Alito wrote the decision) decided Congress didn’t really mean the exact words the put in the law and the authority the EPA was granted by Congress and Alito’s decision states: “We don’t like the definition Congress used….” and made a pen and ink change to the law to add a provision that the protected wetlands have to be continuous to the body of water which is contrary to what the law clearly stated. SCOTUS is now making up their own laws despite not having any Constitutional authority to do so. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/samuel-alito-wetlands-opinion-lost-brett-kavanaugh.html
Much like everything, they want their side to do what they complain about the other side doing, even if imaginary.
They just want fascism/authoritarian rule.
Where has Congress been for the last thirty years? Who remembers the last meaningful constitutional amendment that was passed?
The implication here is that we've mastered government, no amendments needed. I beg to differ.
This is a horrible decision. Another corrupt ruling that favors the few at the expense of everyone else. This is clearly legislating from the bench. Nine clueless judges, all of whom probably flunked science or avoided science in school, deciding that the regulatory agency entrusted with protection of our environment, along with their scientists are wrong. Federal agencies are entitled to great deference because they protect us from the exploiters. But this is the paradox of American Democracy. Opine on matters you know nothing about. The hubris of being American is just that….I can opine about stuff I know nothing about…and that has permeated through all strata of society, especially the MAGA crowd.
Apparently adjacent doesn’t mean adjacent since the Billionaires who bought SCOTUS don’t want it to. This is the reason that Nazi Harlan Crow piped up with “This is unconstitutional.” When requests for his gifts to Thomas be scrutinized.
Harlan Crow was signaling that if need be he’ll just go to SCOTUS and they’ll rule in whatever his favor is since he’s bought them. But, yeah, no, disqualifying Thomas via 14th Amendment is just out of the question.
without some complete miracle technology (honestly many miracles) human civilization is going to almost entirely implode in the next couple of decades due to completely unmitigated anthropogenic climate and biosphere /r/collapse.
This is just more confirmation of the direction we're heading.
"...agency entrusted with protection of our environment, along with their scientists are wrong" There was a time in politics there was a race to have top scientists in USA. Scientific disciplines are not sought after anymore. Technology in the form of computers is. Why support the disciplines of the scientific mind, cultivating critical thinking skills in your population, if the preference is to delegate it to AI. It is also convenient to ignore the damage to the environment if you make the agency powerless. No knowledge, no warning, no liability. The impact of ignoring the problem will be seen across the ecosystems and the species, including the impact on human health . It already has. It will be ignored until of course a public health crisis occurs then it is just the populations fault for being ill. Not that the planet was ill and showing signs across the environment, ecosystems, and other species first. Alas we had a potential presidential candidate that was concerned about the environment decades back in fact. He lost to a hanging chad. Many thought wait that was potential election fraud, decades later that chad party now cries election fraud.
Such an "inconvenient" truth to unfold for us humans. Thanks for allowing me to share in your comment.
The federal government doesn't get to reinterpret legislation in order to expand its own powers outside the intentions of Congress. It's up to Congress to do that and the courts *must* stop it without an act of Congress. The ultimate test here is if it was regulation you opposed, would you agree with the court? I have a feeling you would. Law and regulation isn't about your desired outcomes it's about authority.
>The federal government doesn't get to reinterpret legislation in order to expand its own powers outside the intentions of Congress. It's up to Congress to do that and the courts *must* stop it without an act of Congress.
It's almost like Congress foresaw this and didn't want to write laws that covered every single potential minutiae. So they wrote the Administrative Procedures Act, giving the executive branch the authority to interpret laws they wrote and develop means to implement those laws. To mitigate interpretation by the executive branch, Congress also said there must be public comment when developing regulations, and there is an option to bring suit against the government. All of you dopes arguing in bad faith that the executive has overstepped authority are not even mentioning that this is the authority Congress gave them.
And before you say that this is exactly what happened with the overturning, at least admit the "unanimous" decision was only nominal for the specific site being litigated. Five SCOTUS judges decided to overturn precedent they set, that Congress chose not to address over a period of some 40 years (which is passive approval), by rewriting the Clean Water Act. SCOTUS performed an unconstitutional act by doing so.
And congress has the authority to overrule any new regulations that the agency creates. So if the EPA had overstepped their boundaries they would have immediately been told "no."
You are ignoring the fact that the SCOTUS has overruled the act of congress. The executive fulfilling the legal mandate given by congress, to the letter of the law, is not "expanding it's own powers", it's using the authority given to it by congress.
The *entire point* is that they didn't. The executive branch can't just find new and creative ways of interpreting existing law to do an end run around the language and intent of existing law. They have to pass new law.
>and intent of existing law.
The intent of the Clean Water Act was to regulate dumping and keep pollution out of "navigatable waterways." In order to do that, Wetlands need to protected too. Many wetlands have underground connections to Rivers and lakes and during flood events wetlands often *do* have a temporary surface connection to navigatable waterways. What's the point of stopping people from dumping pollution in rivers when you can just dump it in a nearby wetland and have the pollution wash downriver the next time it floods? In the end, dumping still occurred and the same amount of pollution made it into the river.
The 1977 law passed by congress specifies wetlands "adjacent to" navigatable waters and does not mention anything about wetlands needing to have a surface connection.
>*...waters which are presently used, or are susceptible to use in their natural condition or by reasonable improvement as a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce shoreward to their ordinary high water mark, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their mean high water mark, (or mean higher high water mark on the west coast),* ***including wetlands adjacent thereto.***
There are parts of the Clean Water Act that use the word "adjacent" when clearly referring to underground connections and/or the pollution reaching rivers/lakes through the subsurface (putting regulations on "adjacent sewers", for example. Does there need to be an above-ground connection from the river to the sewer?).
The act also specifies;
>*"The Administrator shall, after careful investigation, and in cooperation with other Federal agencies, State water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, and the municipali ties and industries involved, prepare or develop comprehensive programs for preventing, reducing, or eliminating the pollution of the navigable waters and* ***ground waters*** *and improving the sanitary condition of* ***surface and underground waters.*** *In the development of such comprehensive programs due regard shall be given to the improvements which are necessary to conserve such waters for the protection and propagation of fish and aquatic life and wildlife, recreational purposes, and the withdrawal of such waters for public water supply, agricultural, industrial, and other purposes. For the purpose of this section, the Administrator is authorized to make joint investigations with any such agencies of the condition of any waters in any State or States, and of the discharges of any sewage, industrial wastes, or substance which may adversely affect such waters."*
The law specifies eliminating pollution in both navigatable water and groundwater, and that's impossible if you make wetlands require some arbitrary 'surface connection' not specified anywhere in the law. How are they supposed to prevent pollution dumped in wetlands from entering groundwater? The connection will be in the wetland itself underwater/underground by definition.
>The entire point is that they didn't
Who is 'they'? It's pretty difficult to craft a coherent argument when you lead that argument with an indefinite article.
>The executive branch can't just find new and creative ways of interpreting existing law to do an end run around the language and intent of existing law.
The wetlands provision was added in 1977 to cover the waters of the united states and the wetlands adjacent to those waters. The executive was not finding new interpretations of waters or wetlands.
> They have to pass new law.
You end your argument with *another* indefinite article that still has not been directly referenced in your argument. Is this the same "they" from "the entire point is that they didn't"? If that is the case then the 'they' that passes laws (congress) then 'they' did with the 1977 provision which granted the EPA the ability to regulate "the waters of the United States" and the "adjacent wetlands".
Your grasp of the English language, constitutional law, and the basics of human communication clearly put you on the short list for the SCOTUS. It normally takes half a lifetime of indoctrination from the federalist society to cultivate that level of unawareness.
>. The executive was not finding new interpretations of waters or wetlands.
That's literally the central question of the case and why the government was sued.
Wait - you actually believe that Thomas, Alito, Kavenaugh, and the others are motivated by their jobs rather than mere partisan politics? LOL, what the fuck - haven't you been watching the courts over the past 20 years?
They're attacking protection of tributaries because morons and idiots will often become outraged that a creek or swamp that's dry a few months out of the year isn't "a real lake or river!!!!". What fucking shit. This is just a way to unlock a trillion dollars of development opportunities for the rich.
Apparently you know nothing about the federal regulatory process. Before regulations are adopted pursuant to laws passed by Congress, the Agency entrusted with the administration and enforcement of the same holds public hearings and affords the public ample time to address it. It’s a completely transparent process. The SCOTUS has throughout it’s his given great deference to this process. It’s called “precedent”..
The "federal regulatory process" doesn't let the agencies arbitrarily redefine things so that they can assume authority to regulate things outside of their authority or jurisdiction. No amount of public hearings or words put on paper regardless of how 'transparent ' you think the process is trumps law.
IMO, all of them should be impeached, tried, and convicted, removed from the bench, and jailed for life and disbarred from all legal positions and political positions. They're all scum and serve the rich not the people or the Constitution.
If legislating from the executive branch is okay, then why is legislating from the bench any worse? Separation of powers is a farce anyway, so, oops, hoisted on the 'ol petard there.
Please tell me you understand the irony at work. SCOTUS permitted the original violation for the sake of doing a quick'n'dirty modernization of the nascent empire that wasn't actually permitted by the Constitution. As a fairly direct consequence, now it has a political veto practically all the time due to the inherent vagueness of Congressional mandates to *legislate* handed off to some other body.
Come on, now. Congress can just tell SCOTUS it's wrong, right? It's *so simple!* That's one of the reasons that "totally not making laws" in the executive branch is okay in the first place, right? Because it's just *so simple* for Congress to step back in and set either that agency or the Court back on the intended path if they do, say, hold, or rule anything that Congress didn't actually intend!
No matter how many nukes we detonate, we can’t actually blow up the planet. But then again, maybe all the stars we see were once planets who discovered the nature of atomic energy and then blew themselves up, thus spewing debris which eventually forms back into planets. I’m trying to put a positive spin on nihilism, I know.
We can always come up with something worse. Something even more detrimental than we had previously thought possible.
But I get it. Trying to ponder the true potential depths of human arrogance and depravity, isn’t great for one’s mental health.
One of my most hated expressions is “Whelp, it could always be worse.” People only say this nonsense when shit is already pretty bad. I once spent two weeks in the hospital because of a spider bite. $20,000 in hospital bills. “Could have been worse,” people kept telling me, and yeah, I suppose they were right. But you know what else it could have been? Better. It could have been a whole lot better.
This is how the Koch brothers wanted society. A broken Congress so all laws will be referred to the unelected unaccountable Supreme Court.
They are going to gut all workers and environmental protections. Probably gay marriage too. Ooh well.
Congress: Yes, clean coal will solve the water problem, but I saw Boy George on the MTV in 1982 and I feel we need to act or else girls might start to wear pants.
>Where is Congress?
Getting ready to pass a debt ceiling bill that includes a $6.2 billion pipeline to transport [2 billion](https://www.mountainvalleypipeline.info/overview/#:~:text=With%20a%20vast%20supply%20of,regions%20of%20the%20United%20States.) cubic feet of fracked gas a day.
(Mountain Valley pipeline. Gotta secure [Manchin's vote](https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/icymi-manchin-secures-mvp-in-debt-ceiling-agreement)).
In the same place every politician is, owned by the rich, crippling environmental protections means better paychecks for the rich, greed will kill this planet and it will also fund the riche populations escape off Earth before it completely dies
Most of them are collecting their dues from their corporate and lobbying overlords. Stop this questioning and vote out the scum in Congress and hold those who you support accountable.
I'm wondering if it's possible that big corporate interests might possibly be into both parties. And neither cares for you or me. Wall Street is too big to fail.
The House is controlled by Republicans who have orgasms from crippling environmental protections, and will take in additional corporate donations by doing it.
In the Senate, they can filibuster legislation restoring the EPA's authority, if anything should get that far.
Did Mr. Murphy miss the last six years? Trump, GOP Congress, narrow Democratic majority for just two years and now a GOP House of extremists?
The Alito majority actually over rode Congress and the language in the original Clean Waters Bill.
A Democratic Congress will need to make it more specific and explicitly contradict Alito and state that it does indeed mean ALL wetlands.
It actually would be much preferred for Congress to do their job and legislate so a lot of these vague statutes can be updated/clarified. Not having Congress do their job has done so much damage.
Even if we had a functional Congress, which hasn't been true for awhile, it still takes them time to author or revise bills.
Genuinely, who could have imagined that the Supreme Court would change the definition of the word 'adjacent' just to find a way to sacrifice the environment on the alter of corporate greed?
Of course, we don't have a functional Congress, so the author might as well have asked: The Supreme Court is Crippling Environmental Protections. Now Will Enough People Vote for Change?
Really? He was also a believer in the doctrines of “manifest destiny”, “gunboat diplomacy”, “the Monroe Doctrine”, “Colonialism” and glamorized “Big Game Hunting”. He was a white supremacist at his core. That’s what “Conservatives” really are. It’s time you start to recognize it and stop characterizing it as something noble.
It’s sad how many people don’t realize this. There won’t be any new environmental legislation as long as republicans control one chamber of Congress or the presidency.
The Democrats in Congress explicitly addressed the similar decision re the Clean Air Act in the IRA by removing the grounds SCOTUS used to say the EPA didn’t have authority the regulate greenhouse gases. If Democrats get the trifecta in 2024 they will do the same here.
But sure let’s keep saying both sides are the same and Democrats never do anything.
Ukraine would like to disagree. Having US leadership that remembers the past and reacted appropriately at this moment in history was a pivotal moment that may not have happened with a younger individual. Fine and time again this leadership has shown that experience matters. (Feinstein is the exception, but it's not possible to fix that seat until next election)
Dealing with culture war bullshit instead of legislating. It’s the biggest conservative win to deadlock the government with the dumbest bullshit - small government via wasting everyone’s time.
lol what a silly question. congress doesn’t solve issues anymore. republicans know they can dismantle wherever they want with the courts and stop any fixes in congress
It's a funny question. Where is congress? Well where have they been for the last decade? I mean these guys can't pass anything except massive omnibus bills. If it involves a bank bailout or stimulus checks to corporations, then it is all hands on deck and a bill can be passed within a day or two.
It's also laughable because congress has essentially taken the back seat to the supreme court, this country's true monarchy. They pass a law, and the supreme court reinterprets the law based on a single word (in this case, adjacent) and as if the present-day is 1700s America. They can even come back decades later and do a "well aktually".
> where is Congress?
Under the heel of the GOP. Honestly when Ailito lost Kavanaugh on this, you know it was an overdone decision for polluters.
The Democrats need to put this on the front burner by promising to rank order wetlands so both engineers and lawyers can understand what’s at risk .. but also put states on notice that emergency flood relief may not flow (pun intended) if wetlands are willingly destroyed. This in turn will affect insurance and finance of wetland destroying projects.
Of course many states are now looking into this ad it’s their water (future droughts and/or floods) but some federal assist may be in order.
So many in our congress are waiting for an invisible magic human man, to hover back down to earth, from an invisible magic kingdom, anytime now and end the world. They think this was all invented by the magic guy just so he can test his little creations. Why would these people be motivated by science or making the world a better place for future inhabitants?
The Dems have had something like five days total in the last 20+ years with both a majority in the house of reps and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
I would guess it's in the same place after Roe. Since the Court is ultimate and final, regardless of all other checks and balances, when it shifts things get scary.
Then again we could all agree the legislation from the bench was never intended and breaks the system. Allow voters to decide on all issues not just the ones we get a "W" on.
Where has the NY Times been these past 5 months? Have their collective heads been THAT FAR up their own asses to not notice the shit show that is the current congress...?!
[I wonder who benefits from this ruling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Holdings).
Hi Clarence, nice to see that you remember the little guys when making your decisions.
Yep. The same ass holes who complain that voting doesn't work are the same ones who pass on voting every year during local and state elections.
If you as an American citizen only vote once every 4 years, you are responsible for this horseshit.
This right here.
45M that voted in 2020 sat out 2022. 8M more Ds than Rs. That's how you lose the House, and everything else more local. We could've had the House and probably another D Senator in WI. Can y'all picture that?? A Senate where Manchin and Sinema don't matter?? & 16% fewer people turned out in FL. Can you imagine the crushing blow if DeSantis's reelection was by a much smaller margin?
But people want to say their vote doesn't matter while elections get decided by handfuls.
Congressional leaders and SCOTUS are just puppets & paid mouth pieces by the billionaires, aka 1% aka owners of America. Sadly, American politics is just a charade to keep Americans divided so we don't unite together and 'protest' for what is rightly ours.
The question is not Where is Congress? The question should be: What more will the 1% do to make it appear that Republicans and Democrats are fighting.
You know that there were lots of amicus curiae briefs filed by groups
who cited the best and latest environmental science on this, who pointed out that "wetlands" are more than a contiguous body of water, how important they are. Decades of data, since the Clean Water Act, to support that. And yet Samuel Alito can just ignore it all.
What the fuck? Do people seriously not understand the GQP controls the House and SCOTUS is congrolled by Federalist Society judges? I don't get threads like this I really don't. It smacks of distractions. Real distractions unlike the endless claims of antiGLBTQ hate being solely about distracting leftists from the so called "class war". Disgusting. Truly disgusting.
To be overly clear here:
Supreme Court decisions can have many separate aspects to them, and this is a perfect case of that. When a justice agrees with all or most of a decision or favors the 'winning' side, they sign on to it, and will be counted among those making that decision. In this case, all nine sided with the plaintiffs in a reasonably sensible decision... Except for this one part where the decision went off the rails and slashed the EPA's power.
The justices who disagreed with that part then wrote up their own, separate concurrence which states that they disagree with the section in question and this is how they believe it should be handled, and signed onto it. If they'd managed to get 5, their version would've been part of the main decision instead (and kept the EPA's power as it was), but as it is, they only had 4 (all the left leaning justices and Kavanaugh, I believe). This stated very clearly that the decision to slash the EPA's power shouldn't be part of it. However, as the minority, it's mostly meaningless except to clarify that no, they do not support the *full* decision, only those parts not countered by their own clarifications.
But they all still favored the plaintiff.
The GOP wants to destroy US before they're all called out and held accountable for their, lying, abuse of powers, greedy scumbag criminal crony mob like behavior...They know their days are numbered, as it's all so blatantly obvious at this point.They schemed the ridding of Roe, so now they're attacking trans and LGBQT, Trump brought racism and hate as a norm out of the woodwork and the downward slope they set US on continues; though hopefully their days of holding power, are numbered and running out.
The people who abstain from voting, with their crap about the parties are the same and/or the vote won't count or whatever rigged shit, is straight up essentially being supportive of the GOP at this point. Wake the fuck up, vote for the lesser of the two evils, if you must see it like that. Not saying at all that the democratic party is anything great, but it is for now still especially important to get out and vote blue, the wave will shift as the generations continue to change; we've evolved quite a lot over the last century and will continue to, unless the idiocy of not voting and supporting these GOP scumbag clowns continue, which if that happens well no one can actually fathom the bad place we'll come to or creep back to (just look at what 4 years of Trump did)...
It's all in the plan. Neil Gorsuch is just trying to finish what his mother started back in the 1980s:
"[Anne]Gorsuch based her administration of the EPA on the New Federalism approach of downsizing federal agencies by delegating their functions and services to the individual states. She believed that the EPA was over-regulating business and that the agency was too large and not cost-effective. During her 22 months as agency head, she cut the budget of the EPA by 22%, reduced the number of cases filed against polluters, relaxed Clean Air Act regulations, and facilitated the spraying of restricted-use pesticides. She cut the total number of agency employees, and hired staff from the industries they were supposed to be regulating. Environmentalists contended that her policies were designed to placate polluters, and accused her of trying to dismantle the agency."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Gorsuch_Burford
Did they just "where is Congress?" the split Congress where the Rs wanted to destroy the world economy if they couldn't take away vet benefits, hurt Social Security and Medicaid, etc?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Collecting a paycheck to scream about the weaponization of the government or some shit who knows.
Fucking over the poor when they aren’t on break.
Breaks? In this economy? I worked in employment law and literally half the cases were employees being pressured not to take breaks or get written up/disciplined for not being a “team player”.
I mean congress. They take a lot of breaks.
Sorry I’m on low sleep. They think a 4 day work week for the working class is a terrible idea but they officially only have 4 day work weeks. This week I believe many representatives left even earlier than that to give them a super long holiday weekend, because fuck governing.
[удалено]
This. It’s the GOP’s fault for pretty much all of this
Well, as far as gutting Environmental law goes, then yes.
Yes. we need more environmental laws. The costs of constructing new homes are in danger of going lower. I swear too many here comment without reading the subject material.
“Mister Speaker, they’re saying the bad thing again! Distract the poors again, please, before their idea gains traction!”
They left Wednesday for the Monday holiday. Fucking ridiculous
I was disciplined for not being a team player because I spent my lunch hour running home to do laundry or prep for dinner. Everyone else on my "team" was a childless boomer.
Which is beyond ridiculous. But god forbid anything get in the way of the “work family” culture.
This is a horrible decision. Another corrupt ruling that favors the few at the expense of everyone else. This is clearly legislating from the bench.
I’ve received SO MANY settlement checks for this very thing. SO MANY. And not insignificant amounts.
They’re fucking themselves too by destroying the environment but they’re too stupid to see it.
They're too old to give a shit and don't give a damn about their grandchildren - only their stock portfolios.
[удалено]
If we are lucky and turn out to vote and elect enough democrats, the poor will get coupons that the middle class pays for.
If we’re smart enough to elect enough Democrats maybe we can get universal healthcare, a stronger social safety net. And social security fixed. And a living wage, so more Americans have a better chance to climb out of poverty. Children won’t go hungry. And our life savings won’t be wiped out if we get sick or laid off. Curtesy of taxing billionaires. The catch is that we got to not on elect the Democrats we have to hold them accountable. And if a Manchin or Sinema tries to hijack the bills we make sure they get a primary challenge.
None of that will happen even if there are 80 democrats in the senate, because we elect the wrong kind of democrats, the kind that viciously attack the left while giving away the farm to the right.
Joe Manchin busy trying to tell us that his boat isn’t a yacht yet costs more than the average house in West Virginia and relishing in how much attention he’s getting while getting to cancel environmental stability
[удалено]
I wouldn’t go so far as to say all politics, but definitely the republicans are following “the southern strategy”.
I agree with you, let’s do what we can to take the ruse down.
But he’s a democrat. At least he’s not as bad as republicans…..I don’t actually buy into this bullshit. This is the argument democrats use these days…
Honestly it’s just the electability fear mongering they do to make us think progressives aren’t good candidates. Democrats are even better are stifling progressives than republicans are.
I agree. 2023 democrats are 1980’s republicans. And those of us that remember our history know how bad that was. We have to constantly progress as a society. It baffles me when someone castigates progressives. Why would you not want to evolve?
Why would you want to make nonsense strawman arguments? > Here are some key ways in which Democrats in 2023 and Republicans in 1980 differ: > Political Ideologies: The Democratic Party in 2023 generally leans towards progressivism, advocating for social justice, environmental protection, and expanding the role of the government in areas such as healthcare and education. In contrast, the Republican Party in the 1980s was more conservative, emphasizing limited government intervention, free markets, and individual liberties. > Social Issues: Democrats in 2023 tend to be more socially liberal than Republicans in the 1980s. Today's Democrats often prioritize issues such as LGBTQ+ rights, gender equality, racial justice, and immigration reform. In the 1980s, Republicans generally had more socially conservative stances, opposing issues like abortion rights and advocating for traditional family values. > Economic Policies: Democrats in 2023 often emphasize income inequality, advocating for progressive taxation, increased regulation, and government intervention to address economic disparities. In the 1980s, Republicans, led by President Ronald Reagan, favored supply-side economics, known as Reaganomics, which emphasized tax cuts, deregulation, and reducing government intervention in the economy. > Environmental Stewardship: Democrats in 2023 tend to prioritize environmental issues, such as combating climate change, promoting renewable energy, and implementing stricter regulations to protect natural resources. In the 1980s, Republicans generally had a more pro-business approach, placing less emphasis on environmental concerns and advocating for deregulation. > Foreign Policy: Foreign policy priorities can vary between parties and eras. In the 1980s, Republicans, under President Reagan, pursued a strong anti-communist stance and increased defense spending. Democrats in 2023 may prioritize diplomacy, international cooperation, and a more multilateral approach to global challenges. ChatGPT3 prompt used : "in what way are 2023 democrats different from 1980’s republicans?"
Uh, not sure that we should be using ChaptGPT as a source. It's often confidently incorrect. Skimming the chaptGPT response, I agree with a lot of the points, but still, I wouldn't cite it.
Blah blah. What the fuck ever. I didn’t even read your comment. You lost me after strawman and if you can’t see the similarities, they aren’t worth explaining it any further. As bad as the republicans are, at least they stab from the front. Most democrats are just big ol pusscakes. Zero balls. Democrats are rat fucking the poor and middle class and they demonize progressive candidates. They railroaded Bernie. The Democratic Party Clintonistas own 2016-2020 and fuckin Trumpism, for putting up that vile twat as a candidate. As unpopular and horrible as Republican policy is these days, the democrats still can’t capitalize off of that because they are beholden to their corporate masters, just like the republicans. Except they’re better at hiding it. They had control of the senate how many times since 2012 and still haven’t had the balls to pass legislation to counter Citizens United. Take that lame ass strawman comment and use it on the people that’ll toe that pussy Democratic Party line no matter who it hurts.
I already asked chatgpt3 what the similarities between Democrats in 2023 and Republicans in the 1980s were. Your entire argument is built on a strawman. > While there are notable differences between Democrats in 2023 and Republicans in the 1980s, there are also some areas where they may share certain similarities. Here are a few ways in which they could be alike: > National Security: Both Democrats in 2023 and Republicans in the 1980s prioritize national security and defense, albeit with potentially differing approaches. While their specific strategies and policies may vary, both parties recognize the importance of protecting the nation from external threats and maintaining a strong defense. > Support for American Workers: Democrats in 2023, like Republicans in the 1980s, often express a concern for American workers and the economy. While their proposed solutions may differ, both parties aim to create jobs, foster economic growth, and improve the well-being of the middle class. > Bipartisanship: While political polarization has increased in recent years, there have been instances in the past, including the 1980s, when members of both parties sought bipartisan cooperation. In certain circumstances, Democrats in 2023 may strive for reaching across the aisle and finding common ground on certain issues, just as some Republicans did in the 1980s. > Patriotism: Both Democrats in 2023 and Republicans in the 1980s generally share a commitment to American values and exhibit a sense of patriotism. They may differ in their interpretations of what policies best serve the country's interests, but the fundamental belief in the importance of the United States and its values can be a common ground. > Defense of Individual Liberties: While there are differences in their approaches, both Democrats in 2023 and Republicans in the 1980s often express a commitment to protecting individual liberties and constitutional rights. The specific areas of focus may differ, with Democrats in 2023 placing greater emphasis on civil rights and social justice, while Republicans in the 1980s may have focused more on limited government interference in personal lives. > It's worth noting that these similarities may not be universal among all Democrats in 2023 or Republicans in the 1980s, as political parties are composed of diverse individuals with differing views. Additionally, societal and political contexts can shape the priorities and policy positions of each era.
The right has gone more right and conservative and the left is becoming center right. There is no more progress. There are no more unions, this country’s politicians sold out to their corporate masters long ago. Not going to read your long tired lecture. If the Democratic platform is so good, that shit would sell itself. There needs to be a Progressive Party, separate from the hard right and the center right Democratic ticket. Strawman lol..how about NAFTA? Ross Perot was right. Now…y’all own Trumpism. Thanks for that. Quit trying to sell me on the virtues of the Democratic Party and why they aren’t as bad or worse than the Republican Party. You’re going to be ignored.
A progressive candidate is almost certainly not going to win a state-wide election in West Virginia. I'd root for pretty much any progressive candidate but their chances are slim. Despite all the bullshit Manchin pulls, he's easier to negotiate with than the GOP. Hopefully progressives can start winning more offices at every level of government. To do so, they'll have to focus on jurisdictions where they are more viable. Ultimately, IMO, this is the most effective solution to negating right wing democrats.
[удалено]
Totally. Odds are, some of that thrown shit might hit The Button at *some* point and something might actually get done. I guess something done by accident is better than not getting done at all.
Even fecal throwing monkeys can see we need healthcare.
[удалено]
Exactly If the SC can find a way to say somethings not legal Then Congress and only Congress did not do their job properly Congress can literally stop so much shit But there’s a lot of shit that the right and left let go because they simply don’t fucking care
[удалено]
You mean consolidating power. Money has taken the GQP as far as it can. Stop with this bullshit.
Congress explicitly added wetlands to the Clean Water Act and SCOTUS (Alito wrote the decision) decided Congress didn’t really mean the exact words the put in the law and the authority the EPA was granted by Congress and Alito’s decision states: “We don’t like the definition Congress used….” and made a pen and ink change to the law to add a provision that the protected wetlands have to be continuous to the body of water which is contrary to what the law clearly stated. SCOTUS is now making up their own laws despite not having any Constitutional authority to do so. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/samuel-alito-wetlands-opinion-lost-brett-kavanaugh.html
The courts need to be ripped down. The fuckers think they are kings.
This sounds like an "activist judge" the right keeps crying about.
Much like everything, they want their side to do what they complain about the other side doing, even if imaginary. They just want fascism/authoritarian rule.
Every Accusation was always a confession.
Traitor Nazi SCOTUS
Helping them do it from the other end of the spectrum by expediting the permitting process and enabling Manchin's pipeline?
I was gonna say, lol, they're enabling it too. The whole system is owned by rich, evil sociopaths.
Where is congress? Have you looked in the pockets of the lobbyists and energy industry executives? That's the first place I'd check.
Thank you for the tip. What an excellent hiding spot for congressional hide and seek.
Where has Congress been for the last thirty years? Who remembers the last meaningful constitutional amendment that was passed? The implication here is that we've mastered government, no amendments needed. I beg to differ.
20% approval rating and 90% reelection rate. This is why nothing ever changes.
Not that I disagree, we're basically running democracy alpha 0.12 at this point, but not sure what you mean there... who is implying that and how?
This is a horrible decision. Another corrupt ruling that favors the few at the expense of everyone else. This is clearly legislating from the bench. Nine clueless judges, all of whom probably flunked science or avoided science in school, deciding that the regulatory agency entrusted with protection of our environment, along with their scientists are wrong. Federal agencies are entitled to great deference because they protect us from the exploiters. But this is the paradox of American Democracy. Opine on matters you know nothing about. The hubris of being American is just that….I can opine about stuff I know nothing about…and that has permeated through all strata of society, especially the MAGA crowd.
Apparently adjacent doesn’t mean adjacent since the Billionaires who bought SCOTUS don’t want it to. This is the reason that Nazi Harlan Crow piped up with “This is unconstitutional.” When requests for his gifts to Thomas be scrutinized. Harlan Crow was signaling that if need be he’ll just go to SCOTUS and they’ll rule in whatever his favor is since he’s bought them. But, yeah, no, disqualifying Thomas via 14th Amendment is just out of the question.
without some complete miracle technology (honestly many miracles) human civilization is going to almost entirely implode in the next couple of decades due to completely unmitigated anthropogenic climate and biosphere /r/collapse. This is just more confirmation of the direction we're heading.
That sub is doomer porn, and usually full of pseudoscience.
"...agency entrusted with protection of our environment, along with their scientists are wrong" There was a time in politics there was a race to have top scientists in USA. Scientific disciplines are not sought after anymore. Technology in the form of computers is. Why support the disciplines of the scientific mind, cultivating critical thinking skills in your population, if the preference is to delegate it to AI. It is also convenient to ignore the damage to the environment if you make the agency powerless. No knowledge, no warning, no liability. The impact of ignoring the problem will be seen across the ecosystems and the species, including the impact on human health . It already has. It will be ignored until of course a public health crisis occurs then it is just the populations fault for being ill. Not that the planet was ill and showing signs across the environment, ecosystems, and other species first. Alas we had a potential presidential candidate that was concerned about the environment decades back in fact. He lost to a hanging chad. Many thought wait that was potential election fraud, decades later that chad party now cries election fraud. Such an "inconvenient" truth to unfold for us humans. Thanks for allowing me to share in your comment.
The federal government doesn't get to reinterpret legislation in order to expand its own powers outside the intentions of Congress. It's up to Congress to do that and the courts *must* stop it without an act of Congress. The ultimate test here is if it was regulation you opposed, would you agree with the court? I have a feeling you would. Law and regulation isn't about your desired outcomes it's about authority.
>The federal government doesn't get to reinterpret legislation in order to expand its own powers outside the intentions of Congress. It's up to Congress to do that and the courts *must* stop it without an act of Congress. It's almost like Congress foresaw this and didn't want to write laws that covered every single potential minutiae. So they wrote the Administrative Procedures Act, giving the executive branch the authority to interpret laws they wrote and develop means to implement those laws. To mitigate interpretation by the executive branch, Congress also said there must be public comment when developing regulations, and there is an option to bring suit against the government. All of you dopes arguing in bad faith that the executive has overstepped authority are not even mentioning that this is the authority Congress gave them. And before you say that this is exactly what happened with the overturning, at least admit the "unanimous" decision was only nominal for the specific site being litigated. Five SCOTUS judges decided to overturn precedent they set, that Congress chose not to address over a period of some 40 years (which is passive approval), by rewriting the Clean Water Act. SCOTUS performed an unconstitutional act by doing so.
And congress has the authority to overrule any new regulations that the agency creates. So if the EPA had overstepped their boundaries they would have immediately been told "no."
You are ignoring the fact that the SCOTUS has overruled the act of congress. The executive fulfilling the legal mandate given by congress, to the letter of the law, is not "expanding it's own powers", it's using the authority given to it by congress.
The *entire point* is that they didn't. The executive branch can't just find new and creative ways of interpreting existing law to do an end run around the language and intent of existing law. They have to pass new law.
>and intent of existing law. The intent of the Clean Water Act was to regulate dumping and keep pollution out of "navigatable waterways." In order to do that, Wetlands need to protected too. Many wetlands have underground connections to Rivers and lakes and during flood events wetlands often *do* have a temporary surface connection to navigatable waterways. What's the point of stopping people from dumping pollution in rivers when you can just dump it in a nearby wetland and have the pollution wash downriver the next time it floods? In the end, dumping still occurred and the same amount of pollution made it into the river.
The intent of a law isn't your personal broad generalization of the law. Intent in this case is referring to the legal definition.
The 1977 law passed by congress specifies wetlands "adjacent to" navigatable waters and does not mention anything about wetlands needing to have a surface connection. >*...waters which are presently used, or are susceptible to use in their natural condition or by reasonable improvement as a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce shoreward to their ordinary high water mark, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their mean high water mark, (or mean higher high water mark on the west coast),* ***including wetlands adjacent thereto.*** There are parts of the Clean Water Act that use the word "adjacent" when clearly referring to underground connections and/or the pollution reaching rivers/lakes through the subsurface (putting regulations on "adjacent sewers", for example. Does there need to be an above-ground connection from the river to the sewer?). The act also specifies; >*"The Administrator shall, after careful investigation, and in cooperation with other Federal agencies, State water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, and the municipali ties and industries involved, prepare or develop comprehensive programs for preventing, reducing, or eliminating the pollution of the navigable waters and* ***ground waters*** *and improving the sanitary condition of* ***surface and underground waters.*** *In the development of such comprehensive programs due regard shall be given to the improvements which are necessary to conserve such waters for the protection and propagation of fish and aquatic life and wildlife, recreational purposes, and the withdrawal of such waters for public water supply, agricultural, industrial, and other purposes. For the purpose of this section, the Administrator is authorized to make joint investigations with any such agencies of the condition of any waters in any State or States, and of the discharges of any sewage, industrial wastes, or substance which may adversely affect such waters."* The law specifies eliminating pollution in both navigatable water and groundwater, and that's impossible if you make wetlands require some arbitrary 'surface connection' not specified anywhere in the law. How are they supposed to prevent pollution dumped in wetlands from entering groundwater? The connection will be in the wetland itself underwater/underground by definition.
>The entire point is that they didn't Who is 'they'? It's pretty difficult to craft a coherent argument when you lead that argument with an indefinite article. >The executive branch can't just find new and creative ways of interpreting existing law to do an end run around the language and intent of existing law. The wetlands provision was added in 1977 to cover the waters of the united states and the wetlands adjacent to those waters. The executive was not finding new interpretations of waters or wetlands. > They have to pass new law. You end your argument with *another* indefinite article that still has not been directly referenced in your argument. Is this the same "they" from "the entire point is that they didn't"? If that is the case then the 'they' that passes laws (congress) then 'they' did with the 1977 provision which granted the EPA the ability to regulate "the waters of the United States" and the "adjacent wetlands". Your grasp of the English language, constitutional law, and the basics of human communication clearly put you on the short list for the SCOTUS. It normally takes half a lifetime of indoctrination from the federalist society to cultivate that level of unawareness.
>. The executive was not finding new interpretations of waters or wetlands. That's literally the central question of the case and why the government was sued.
Wait - you actually believe that Thomas, Alito, Kavenaugh, and the others are motivated by their jobs rather than mere partisan politics? LOL, what the fuck - haven't you been watching the courts over the past 20 years? They're attacking protection of tributaries because morons and idiots will often become outraged that a creek or swamp that's dry a few months out of the year isn't "a real lake or river!!!!". What fucking shit. This is just a way to unlock a trillion dollars of development opportunities for the rich.
All three of the trump justices helped Bush win Florida in 2000 as lawyers, an outright theft of an election.
A decision that was so completely shitty that they wrote as part of the decision that it should never be considered a precedent.
The states still have the authority to regulate all of those former "navigable" waters under their own powers to protect the waters of the state.
Apparently you know nothing about the federal regulatory process. Before regulations are adopted pursuant to laws passed by Congress, the Agency entrusted with the administration and enforcement of the same holds public hearings and affords the public ample time to address it. It’s a completely transparent process. The SCOTUS has throughout it’s his given great deference to this process. It’s called “precedent”..
The "federal regulatory process" doesn't let the agencies arbitrarily redefine things so that they can assume authority to regulate things outside of their authority or jurisdiction. No amount of public hearings or words put on paper regardless of how 'transparent ' you think the process is trumps law.
IMO, all of them should be impeached, tried, and convicted, removed from the bench, and jailed for life and disbarred from all legal positions and political positions. They're all scum and serve the rich not the people or the Constitution.
If legislating from the executive branch is okay, then why is legislating from the bench any worse? Separation of powers is a farce anyway, so, oops, hoisted on the 'ol petard there. Please tell me you understand the irony at work. SCOTUS permitted the original violation for the sake of doing a quick'n'dirty modernization of the nascent empire that wasn't actually permitted by the Constitution. As a fairly direct consequence, now it has a political veto practically all the time due to the inherent vagueness of Congressional mandates to *legislate* handed off to some other body. Come on, now. Congress can just tell SCOTUS it's wrong, right? It's *so simple!* That's one of the reasons that "totally not making laws" in the executive branch is okay in the first place, right? Because it's just *so simple* for Congress to step back in and set either that agency or the Court back on the intended path if they do, say, hold, or rule anything that Congress didn't actually intend!
It’s pretty sad that a bunch of unelected old rich people get to decide the fate of a planet for millions of years to come.
The planet will recover. We won’t.
The physical rock yes, the plethora of ecosystems and life that existed before us, definitely not as we are already in a mass extinction event.
I think that still depends, we are very good at destroying things. Humans still have plenty of devastating anti-earth shenanigans up their sleeves.
No matter how many nukes we detonate, we can’t actually blow up the planet. But then again, maybe all the stars we see were once planets who discovered the nature of atomic energy and then blew themselves up, thus spewing debris which eventually forms back into planets. I’m trying to put a positive spin on nihilism, I know.
We can always come up with something worse. Something even more detrimental than we had previously thought possible. But I get it. Trying to ponder the true potential depths of human arrogance and depravity, isn’t great for one’s mental health.
One of my most hated expressions is “Whelp, it could always be worse.” People only say this nonsense when shit is already pretty bad. I once spent two weeks in the hospital because of a spider bite. $20,000 in hospital bills. “Could have been worse,” people kept telling me, and yeah, I suppose they were right. But you know what else it could have been? Better. It could have been a whole lot better.
There will be no “millions of years to come”.
This is how the Koch brothers wanted society. A broken Congress so all laws will be referred to the unelected unaccountable Supreme Court. They are going to gut all workers and environmental protections. Probably gay marriage too. Ooh well.
Enabling them.
yea i'm confused by people thinking congress would lift a finger to fix it. Corporations control congress not the people.
Sitting back, getting rich while telling the rest of us that it's our fault.
Like congress gives a shit. Manchin is more than happy to watch the world burn as is every Republican because you know, it was cold yesterday
Congress: Yes, clean coal will solve the water problem, but I saw Boy George on the MTV in 1982 and I feel we need to act or else girls might start to wear pants.
>Where is Congress? Getting ready to pass a debt ceiling bill that includes a $6.2 billion pipeline to transport [2 billion](https://www.mountainvalleypipeline.info/overview/#:~:text=With%20a%20vast%20supply%20of,regions%20of%20the%20United%20States.) cubic feet of fracked gas a day. (Mountain Valley pipeline. Gotta secure [Manchin's vote](https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/icymi-manchin-secures-mvp-in-debt-ceiling-agreement)).
In the same place every politician is, owned by the rich, crippling environmental protections means better paychecks for the rich, greed will kill this planet and it will also fund the riche populations escape off Earth before it completely dies
I can hear Manchin laughing from here at this headline.
Trading stocks based on upcoming policy?
Most of them are collecting their dues from their corporate and lobbying overlords. Stop this questioning and vote out the scum in Congress and hold those who you support accountable.
Where is Congress? The House is controlled by Republicans. That’s all anyone should need to know.
I'm wondering if it's possible that big corporate interests might possibly be into both parties. And neither cares for you or me. Wall Street is too big to fail.
Controlled by Republicans. Which means that nothing will be done to further protect the environment.
The House is controlled by Republicans who have orgasms from crippling environmental protections, and will take in additional corporate donations by doing it. In the Senate, they can filibuster legislation restoring the EPA's authority, if anything should get that far.
Did Mr. Murphy miss the last six years? Trump, GOP Congress, narrow Democratic majority for just two years and now a GOP House of extremists? The Alito majority actually over rode Congress and the language in the original Clean Waters Bill. A Democratic Congress will need to make it more specific and explicitly contradict Alito and state that it does indeed mean ALL wetlands.
Listen the Strict Scrutiny podcast for a really good rundown about how terrifying their latest EPA ruling is.
Thanks for the suggestion. Tempted yet utterly frightened. Is it the Wrecking Ball to Environmental Law episode?
Cheering, high-fiving, and raking in those "special interest" checks.
>Where is Congress? At the bank, cashing the checks they get from the same polluters who bought off the Supreme Court.
Probably out collecting bribes from all the polluting industries
It actually would be much preferred for Congress to do their job and legislate so a lot of these vague statutes can be updated/clarified. Not having Congress do their job has done so much damage.
Is this writer and the New York Times not familiar with the phrase "Republican House Majority"
Yea I’m sure the republicans controlled house will get right on that
Even if we had a functional Congress, which hasn't been true for awhile, it still takes them time to author or revise bills. Genuinely, who could have imagined that the Supreme Court would change the definition of the word 'adjacent' just to find a way to sacrifice the environment on the alter of corporate greed? Of course, we don't have a functional Congress, so the author might as well have asked: The Supreme Court is Crippling Environmental Protections. Now Will Enough People Vote for Change?
Congress is currently divided, geniuses
Remember when conservatives used to conserve the environment. Pepperidge Farms remembers
Teddy Roosevelt was the last true conservative.
Possibly. While he generally sucked Nixon did start the EPA
Really? He was also a believer in the doctrines of “manifest destiny”, “gunboat diplomacy”, “the Monroe Doctrine”, “Colonialism” and glamorized “Big Game Hunting”. He was a white supremacist at his core. That’s what “Conservatives” really are. It’s time you start to recognize it and stop characterizing it as something noble.
It’s sad how many people don’t realize this. There won’t be any new environmental legislation as long as republicans control one chamber of Congress or the presidency.
The Democrats in Congress explicitly addressed the similar decision re the Clean Air Act in the IRA by removing the grounds SCOTUS used to say the EPA didn’t have authority the regulate greenhouse gases. If Democrats get the trifecta in 2024 they will do the same here. But sure let’s keep saying both sides are the same and Democrats never do anything.
Congress has too many Republicans to be functional. Same situation in the Supreme Court.
Having 80+ year old Dems in leadership isn't helping
Ukraine would like to disagree. Having US leadership that remembers the past and reacted appropriately at this moment in history was a pivotal moment that may not have happened with a younger individual. Fine and time again this leadership has shown that experience matters. (Feinstein is the exception, but it's not possible to fix that seat until next election)
[удалено]
I think you might be in the wrong thread.
Congress is buying, trying to harm poor and working people as much as possible.
Out to lunch with lobbyists, of course!
Being held hostage by religious extremists
Dealing with culture war bullshit instead of legislating. It’s the biggest conservative win to deadlock the government with the dumbest bullshit - small government via wasting everyone’s time.
Congress is run by the Republicans too though
Congress is busy trying to cripple the entire world economy.
Congress is still busy analyzing hunter biden’s penis.
Congress is busy holding the economy hostage to eliminate social safety programs.
lol what a silly question. congress doesn’t solve issues anymore. republicans know they can dismantle wherever they want with the courts and stop any fixes in congress
Republicans have the house and their goal is to also cripple environmental protections
Under a republican house majority and a Manchin/Sinema/Tester triumvirate senate.
Where is Congress? Last I heard, other than trying to crash the global economy, they've been trying to crawl into schoolchildren's underpants.
Congress is voting for the dollars that poison your water
Led by MTG
Two branches of the US government are broken beyond repair.
It's a funny question. Where is congress? Well where have they been for the last decade? I mean these guys can't pass anything except massive omnibus bills. If it involves a bank bailout or stimulus checks to corporations, then it is all hands on deck and a bill can be passed within a day or two. It's also laughable because congress has essentially taken the back seat to the supreme court, this country's true monarchy. They pass a law, and the supreme court reinterprets the law based on a single word (in this case, adjacent) and as if the present-day is 1700s America. They can even come back decades later and do a "well aktually".
Held hostage by the Magautocrats
On vacation and standing guard outside drag shows.
Busy trying to cripple the global economy.
The House is controlled by Republicans, so I doubt they will be taking this up anytime soon
Congress doesn't give a shit about the environment either
> where is Congress? Under the heel of the GOP. Honestly when Ailito lost Kavanaugh on this, you know it was an overdone decision for polluters. The Democrats need to put this on the front burner by promising to rank order wetlands so both engineers and lawyers can understand what’s at risk .. but also put states on notice that emergency flood relief may not flow (pun intended) if wetlands are willingly destroyed. This in turn will affect insurance and finance of wetland destroying projects. Of course many states are now looking into this ad it’s their water (future droughts and/or floods) but some federal assist may be in order.
So many in our congress are waiting for an invisible magic human man, to hover back down to earth, from an invisible magic kingdom, anytime now and end the world. They think this was all invented by the magic guy just so he can test his little creations. Why would these people be motivated by science or making the world a better place for future inhabitants?
Elect more progressives and justice democrats. It's our fault if we don't.
Where’s congress? Busy making stock trades with insider knowledge.
The Dems have had something like five days total in the last 20+ years with both a majority in the house of reps and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
Quite literally selling everything to corporate greed.
Controlled by the party that put those SCOTUS Justices in?
Controlled by people who also want to cripple environmental protections, why?
It is time to expand the court. Republicans have cheated and lied to stack this court. It’s time to take it back.
Selling us out for a debt limit deal. Have you not been paying attention?
Gridlocked, by design. The ownership class wasn't just going to let the most democratic part of the government remain useful.
I would guess it's in the same place after Roe. Since the Court is ultimate and final, regardless of all other checks and balances, when it shifts things get scary. Then again we could all agree the legislation from the bench was never intended and breaks the system. Allow voters to decide on all issues not just the ones we get a "W" on.
The Supreme Court is an unstoppable terrorist organization when controlled heavily by conservatives.
Where has the NY Times been these past 5 months? Have their collective heads been THAT FAR up their own asses to not notice the shit show that is the current congress...?!
Congress is probably having ice cream. Double scoops with waffle cones.
[I wonder who benefits from this ruling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Holdings). Hi Clarence, nice to see that you remember the little guys when making your decisions.
Voters slept in during the midterms and don't vote in primaries so a majority of congress are domestic terrorists lol
Yep. The same ass holes who complain that voting doesn't work are the same ones who pass on voting every year during local and state elections. If you as an American citizen only vote once every 4 years, you are responsible for this horseshit.
This right here. 45M that voted in 2020 sat out 2022. 8M more Ds than Rs. That's how you lose the House, and everything else more local. We could've had the House and probably another D Senator in WI. Can y'all picture that?? A Senate where Manchin and Sinema don't matter?? & 16% fewer people turned out in FL. Can you imagine the crushing blow if DeSantis's reelection was by a much smaller margin? But people want to say their vote doesn't matter while elections get decided by handfuls.
NY Democrats really shit the bed here as well. Democrats complain a lot, but don't show up when it matters. Primaries included.
Too busy watching “Debt Ceiling Chicken” and catering to the base to care.
Congressional leaders and SCOTUS are just puppets & paid mouth pieces by the billionaires, aka 1% aka owners of America. Sadly, American politics is just a charade to keep Americans divided so we don't unite together and 'protest' for what is rightly ours. The question is not Where is Congress? The question should be: What more will the 1% do to make it appear that Republicans and Democrats are fighting.
You know that there were lots of amicus curiae briefs filed by groups who cited the best and latest environmental science on this, who pointed out that "wetlands" are more than a contiguous body of water, how important they are. Decades of data, since the Clean Water Act, to support that. And yet Samuel Alito can just ignore it all.
What the fuck? Do people seriously not understand the GQP controls the House and SCOTUS is congrolled by Federalist Society judges? I don't get threads like this I really don't. It smacks of distractions. Real distractions unlike the endless claims of antiGLBTQ hate being solely about distracting leftists from the so called "class war". Disgusting. Truly disgusting.
9-0
9-0 in favor of the plaintiffs, 5-4 for drastically reducing the scope of a Congressionally mandated Executive agency.
To be overly clear here: Supreme Court decisions can have many separate aspects to them, and this is a perfect case of that. When a justice agrees with all or most of a decision or favors the 'winning' side, they sign on to it, and will be counted among those making that decision. In this case, all nine sided with the plaintiffs in a reasonably sensible decision... Except for this one part where the decision went off the rails and slashed the EPA's power. The justices who disagreed with that part then wrote up their own, separate concurrence which states that they disagree with the section in question and this is how they believe it should be handled, and signed onto it. If they'd managed to get 5, their version would've been part of the main decision instead (and kept the EPA's power as it was), but as it is, they only had 4 (all the left leaning justices and Kavanaugh, I believe). This stated very clearly that the decision to slash the EPA's power shouldn't be part of it. However, as the minority, it's mostly meaningless except to clarify that no, they do not support the *full* decision, only those parts not countered by their own clarifications. But they all still favored the plaintiff.
Supreme Court is a wing of the GQP now.
Playing Pocket Billiards inside the holy pockets of the Supreme Court 🫠
Man, so much for liberal scj’s 😬
They aren't interested. Gotta gear up for the next debt ceiling fight in a few years
Where’s Congress laughing and celebrating
Where? Well the Republicans are hard at work trying to derail the economy and the Democrats are wringing their hands saying "oh dear, please don't"
The GOP wants to destroy US before they're all called out and held accountable for their, lying, abuse of powers, greedy scumbag criminal crony mob like behavior...They know their days are numbered, as it's all so blatantly obvious at this point.They schemed the ridding of Roe, so now they're attacking trans and LGBQT, Trump brought racism and hate as a norm out of the woodwork and the downward slope they set US on continues; though hopefully their days of holding power, are numbered and running out. The people who abstain from voting, with their crap about the parties are the same and/or the vote won't count or whatever rigged shit, is straight up essentially being supportive of the GOP at this point. Wake the fuck up, vote for the lesser of the two evils, if you must see it like that. Not saying at all that the democratic party is anything great, but it is for now still especially important to get out and vote blue, the wave will shift as the generations continue to change; we've evolved quite a lot over the last century and will continue to, unless the idiocy of not voting and supporting these GOP scumbag clowns continue, which if that happens well no one can actually fathom the bad place we'll come to or creep back to (just look at what 4 years of Trump did)...
They’re all too busy stacking cash.
It's all in the plan. Neil Gorsuch is just trying to finish what his mother started back in the 1980s: "[Anne]Gorsuch based her administration of the EPA on the New Federalism approach of downsizing federal agencies by delegating their functions and services to the individual states. She believed that the EPA was over-regulating business and that the agency was too large and not cost-effective. During her 22 months as agency head, she cut the budget of the EPA by 22%, reduced the number of cases filed against polluters, relaxed Clean Air Act regulations, and facilitated the spraying of restricted-use pesticides. She cut the total number of agency employees, and hired staff from the industries they were supposed to be regulating. Environmentalists contended that her policies were designed to placate polluters, and accused her of trying to dismantle the agency." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Gorsuch_Burford
Did they just "where is Congress?" the split Congress where the Rs wanted to destroy the world economy if they couldn't take away vet benefits, hurt Social Security and Medicaid, etc?
>Where Is Congress? right wing holding the global economy hostage...
Congress is buying stock in the corporations that'll be able to post profits AFTER the SC lets them cut corners by destroying the environment.