this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
166 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2704 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I could be totally wrong here since I don't have a great understanding of how these processes worked. So downvote if you will but I'd like to be corrected.

Does this even really matter when in a lot of cases the 'experts' were often paid to say whatever corporations wanted anyhow? See the current climate crisis and all the 'experts' that guided policy and enabled it.

Obviously letting the courts just go by whatever their guts tell them isn't the answer, but some sort of a best guess based on a large enough scientific consensus?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Having some experts be paid shills while giving other experts the chance to actually legitimately affect change is not the same as handing every decision over to non-experts who incidentally just made defacto bribery legal for their positions.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

This isn't a random expert. He's a supreme court judge. The courts should be independent and impartial. In the US this is not the case, and it is endangering democracy.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I don't usually use much profanity but this is a fucking travesty and the six conservative justices are traitors to the American people. They should all be impeached for blatant corruption and for being bought and paid-for by industry interests. They're not even going to be embarrassed about their scientific mistake except that they got caught out on not understanding what they're ruling on. They know they aren't the experts in everything. They just want corporations to have free reign and for them to be able to trample the rights of citizens.

This is going to allow the courts to rapidly unwind decades of progress that has been made on some of the most important subjects including environmental regulations, workplace regulations and employee rights, antitrust law, and anticorruption law to name a few. Between this and the Jarkesy decision we're going to go back to the days of burning eyes in Los Angeles and Lake Erie on fire, deadly workplaces and no employee right to organize, anticompetitive corporate practices with no oversight, and rampant corporate fraud. There is no longer a reasonable enforcement mechanism due to Jarkesy and there is now no real rule-making authority.

As I said before, all six conservative justices should be impeached for blatant corruption and working against the best interests of the American people. I'd settle for impeaching Alito and Thomas, but they should all be impeached. They are traitors to the American people.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Impeached doesn't go far enough. They are actively committing violence against the America people.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 months ago

An absolute endless embarrassment. It'd be funny if it weren't our fucking collective futures being sold off part and parcel

[–] [email protected] 24 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)
  • NO, NO~2~ (or collectively, NO~x~) - air pollutants

  • N~2~O - anaesthetic

Just in case anyone was wondering about the specific minutiae this ruling requires non-subject-matter-expert judges to take on.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

So I can't do whipits as a show of solidarity in the climate struggle? Damn.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 4 months ago

It’s a little known fact that Justice Gorsuch’s mother was the EPA Administrator under Reagan, and she resigned after an abysmal record of mismanagement.

He’s clearly got some mommy issues.

[–] [email protected] 52 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Just to reaffirm. This ruling is insanely dumb and absolutely hamstrings pretty much all federal enforcement in any domain (it is for a case specific to the EPA but it hurts the DEA, SEC, and DHS just as bad).

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago

SEC hurts because the SEC has been stepping up regulatory changes to increase transparency and fairness in an inherently unfair market (by design!). No surprise all of the big hedge fund terrorists like Ken Griffin donate almost exclusively to republicans. What a coincidence!!!!

[–] [email protected] 35 points 4 months ago

The majority opinion notes that the Supreme Court should be the one that makes these technical judgements on behalf of these agencies, despite that opinion itself containing a technical mistake...