Oh, no!

This entry was posted in Climate hoax, Rule of law. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Oh, no!

  1. Lee says:

    Sounds like M0nty-type neurosis.

  2. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    How awful. Just think what it’d be like not to have government meddling in and micromanaging every aspect of society and life. Who could survive such a terribly ghastly scenario?

  3. Morsie says:

    Slight confusion between government and rule by bureaucrats

  4. Petros says:

    You mean like a federation? Can’t have that can we!

  5. Not Trampis says:

    A supreme court who are partisan hacks now think they can do policy not law.

  6. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    A supreme court who are partisan hacks now think they can do policy not law.

    I’m amused that the newest woman appointed to the court doesn’t know what a woman is. And the second newest woman thinks the US East Coast is about to sink beneath the waves or something.

    Justice Kagan warns parts of East Coast could be ‘swallowed by the ocean’ in dissent in EPA case (30 Jun)

    The average sea level rise as measured by satellite is roughly 3 mm/year, which means it would take longer than the US has been in existence for it to up by one metre. A man with a spoon could build a seawall that high all along the US coastline in 3oo years, if he had the misfortune of getting a job that silly.

  7. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    A supreme court who are partisan hacks now think they can do policy not law.

    A supreme court of partisan hacks has been doing policy not law for around 50 years. The Court has now returned to its correct role of testing the constitutionality of legislation, and ensuring that the administrative state stays in its correct role.

    Returning legislative authority to the legislature, both federally and in the several states is the correct democratic action. If the legislators are unable to convince their fellows to vote for a law, they should not push the Court to usurp the legislative function.

    You do not seem to be all that keen on democracy. Perhaps you needed to get beyond pre-school, to learn about it?

  8. Not Trampis says:

    Yet the Supreme court that is the 6 now thinks it can do policy not law.

    They are held in very low esteem and it will go lower.

    not good for democracy. If only the 6 were conservative

  9. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentie

    Yet the Supreme court that is the 6 now thinks it can do policy not law.

    You need to learn the difference between policy (Roe vs Wade was a good example of the Supreme Court “doing” policy) and law (the recent EPA case was a good example of the Court forcing an administrative agency to adhere to the law, rather than set their own policy preferences without a basis in legislation).

    And, repeating rubbish does not make it true. Had you finished pre-school, you might have learned that later in your education.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.