Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS, Now with KBJ

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Lol. Lmao. I'm ded

    https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...&order_by=desc

    Leave a comment:


  • unofan
    replied
    Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post

    5 said the EPA always overreaches? Good Lord by what precedence is that opinion supported by?
    5 said they always overreach when they try to regulate something which I'm not versed enough to know what it is here. I know it has to do with what qualifies as a "water of the US," and 5 said the EPA categorically overreached here and all across the country. But I don't know exactly how. Something to do with adjacent vs adjoining waters, based on Kavanaugh's concurrence.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post

    5 said the EPA always overreaches? Good Lord by what precedence is that opinion supported by?
    The precedence of profit over people.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScoobyDoo
    replied
    Who needs clean air? Or water? Nixon was a moron for signing the EPA bill.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slap Shot
    replied
    Originally posted by unofan View Post

    9-0 said the EPA overreached in this particular case. 5 said "The EPA overreaches whenever they try to regulate X," while 4 said, "The statute says the EPA can regulate X, this just isn't X."
    5 said the EPA always overreaches? Good Lord by what precedence is that opinion supported by?

    Leave a comment:


  • LynahFan
    replied
    Man, I hate this time of year. Every time this thread bumps to the top, my heart is in my throat.....

    (bump)

    Leave a comment:


  • Swansong
    replied
    Originally posted by Deutsche Gopher Fan View Post
    I learned this very recently (the podcast Strict Scrutiny).


    Leave a comment:


  • unofan
    replied
    Originally posted by St. Clown View Post

    What does that mean, to split the judgment and scope like that? Anything significant?
    9-0 said the EPA overreached in this particular case. 5 said "The EPA overreaches whenever they try to regulate X," while 4 said, "The statute says the EPA can regulate X, this just isn't X."

    Leave a comment:


  • Deutsche Gopher Fan
    replied
    I didn’t know this about gorsuch

    https://twitter.com/beschlossdc/stat...3v2cVkMjQylOVg

    Leave a comment:


  • St. Clown
    replied
    Originally posted by unofan View Post

    9-0 in the judgment, 5-4 in scope (Kavanaugh joined the libs).
    What does that mean, to split the judgment and scope like that? Anything significant?

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Originally posted by psych View Post

    Less clean water = less ice-cold mountain beer for Kavanaugh?
    Does he drink beer or something ;^)

    Leave a comment:


  • psych
    replied
    Originally posted by unofan View Post

    9-0 in the judgment, 5-4 in scope (Kavanaugh joined the libs).
    Less clean water = less ice-cold mountain beer for Kavanaugh?

    Leave a comment:


  • unofan
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post

    +6 and save the world.
    9-0 in the judgment, 5-4 in scope (Kavanaugh joined the libs).

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by bronconick View Post
    Gutted the Clean Water Act, to the surprise of no one.
    +6 and save the world.

    Leave a comment:


  • bronconick
    replied
    Gutted the Clean Water Act, to the surprise of no one.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X