 
     |
| Thoughts on SCOTUS picks??? (Page 3/5) |
|
ray b
|
JUN 24, 11:46 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by blackrams:
Any school that meets the criteria to qualify should qualify.
Why would that even be questioned?
While it may be too late, taking a break from that kool aid might be a good thing. 
Rams
|
|
you know the church /cult was the ones passing out the koolaid
those are the very people or david K the wacko in waco I doNOT want taxes funding
DO YOU ?
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
JUN 24, 12:07 PM
|
|
|
|
blackrams
|
JUN 24, 05:28 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ray b:
wonder how many kids is the right to keep and bear arms worth
save the guns
shoot the schools
fund religious schools
but no abortions
prey for the god of guns |
|
OK, following the above train of thought, ray b wants to save the kids in school but abort/kill the kids in the womb............ Hmm, some how, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I'm probably the only one confused by ray b. 
Rams
|
|
|
|
OldsFiero
|
JUN 24, 05:38 PM
|
|
" I'm probably the only one confused by ray b. "
+ 1 and counting
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
JUN 24, 11:21 PM
|
|
please keep it up
never question any part of your dogma
I am reminded of a quote about pearl harbor
''awakened an implacable enemy filled with a terrible resolve ''
you don't know what is it do you MR JONES
I think you guys are going the way of the wigs fade in to history ------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JUN 25, 08:43 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ray b:
please keep it up
never question any part of your dogma
I am reminded of a quote about pearl harbor
''awakened an implacable enemy filled with a terrible resolve ''
you don't know what is it do you MR JONES
I think you guys are going the way of the wigs fade in to history
|
|
The Whigs turned INTO the Republican party. If the Republican party turns into something even more awesome, I'm ok with that.
Frankly, if the Democrats tomorrow said that they were all for the Constitution, started cutting military waste, curbing welfare for only people who really needed it, and healthy grown-ass men need not apply, then I'd start voting Democrat again.
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
JUN 25, 09:40 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
The Whigs turned INTO the Republican party. If the Republican party turns into something even more awesome, I'm ok with that.
Frankly, if the Democrats tomorrow said that they were all for the Constitution, started cutting military waste, curbing welfare for only people who really needed it, and healthy grown-ass men need not apply, then I'd start voting Democrat again.
|
|
Frankly, if the Democrats tomorrow said that they were all for the Constitution, started cutting military waste, curbing welfare for only people who really needed it, and healthy grown-ass men need not apply, then I'd just figure they came up with a new scam.
|
|
|
Raydar
|
JUN 25, 12:33 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
Anyone remember that Led Zeppelin classic?
|
|
|
|
|
cliffw
|
JUN 29, 07:33 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by blackrams: I'm probably the only one confused by ray b.
Rams |
|
We all are !
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JUN 30, 08:59 AM
|
|
OK! Two more SCOTUS decisions slated for today...
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is set on Thursday to issue its final two rulings of its current term, one on federal agency power to tackle climate change and the other on President Joe Biden's ability to end a hardline immigration policy begun under his predecessor Donald Trump."
My thoughts:
1 - CLIMATE CHANGE: The Supreme Court will likely limit the ability for the EPA to impost certain restrictions. I believe there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that inherently allows Federal agencies to wield the powers that they do. I don't know, but nothing stands out to me. I do know that Federal agencies are generally not allowed to MAKE LAW, but they are allowed to enforce law which has already passed the legislature. A good example of this is the final ruling in the case of LabMD and the FTC. The courts ultimately ruled that the FTC had not defined certain requirements clearly, and were therefore not in legal standing to impose fines. So I think the Supreme Court will rule against the EPA.
2 - IMMIGRATION POLICY: Again, I don't know the specifics, but it seems to me it's looking to address whether or not a previous executive order by President Trump, can be upheld while Biden is president. For one, there is nothing in the Constitution that defines what an "executive order" is, or even that it's something that exists. The very first executive order was from Abraham Lincoln, and for the most part, it respected the authority of the President's duty to "execute laws." The goal was always that executive orders had to deal with the U.S. Government, and engagement with the U.S. Government. So it's become a "standard" if you will, that has never formally been challenged. Unless I'm mistaken, there's no ruling that ensures executive orders from prior presidents have any authority should the next president decide to rescind that. The executive orders will always remain until replaced, but again... that's what Biden has attempted to do. I think the Supreme Court will rule in favor of President Biden.
|
|
|
|