(01-18-2024 12:46 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 12:42 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 12:33 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  JFC out comes the wide eyed communist in you again.

Social democrat. Bwahahah. Well done, Comrade.

You can call me whatever the actual fu*k you want to. If you believe completely unregulated financial markets are going to lead to a good outcome I have some oceanfront property to sell you, amazing view, just take my word for it!

Dude, You're the one buying the oceanfront property here.

And not at 3%. Dude voted for this shite and NOW he's pissed?

(01-18-2024 12:52 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 11:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 11:34 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 11:20 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 11:09 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Im sure there will be some disruption, but a little pruning of the unelected administrative state would be an overall positive

"Some disruption" is a very kind way to put it. Removing Chevron will be the greatest win for plaintiffs lawyers in years. Just go court shopping for whatever district gives you the best chance to draw the correct judge and they can throw out basically any administrative agency regulation or action if it's even the slightest bit vague and not directly spelled out in the law.

So you are in essence in favor of unelected bureaucrats determining regulations.

If my choices are unelected but probably at least somewhat qualified people in that field determining regulation vs unelected judges with zero experience or knowledge in that field determining regulations (and in most cases a complete lack of them) I'm personally taking option 1. I'd be fine with an option 3 where you had a functional legislative branch that could quickly clear up any of these ambiguities, but that option ain't on the table.

You have more faith in bureaucrats that those of us who have experience with them. They are there to justify their position and salary.

The single most important thing a bureaucrat does every single day is find something with which to justify their existence, yes. While it may be argued that the bureaucratic class actually runs government, and that's all well and good, when the alphabet agencies of which they are a part start issuing edicts, rules and regulations without congress legislating those into law then there's a problem. Look at what the ATF is doing regarding gun regulations, look at the detrimental effects of an out of control EPA issuing regulations that are damaging to the country as a whole, look at the abuses of the FBI, the CIA and the DOJ.

What's most surprising, or not, is that congress is OK with the usurpation of their powers. In one respect I'd be pissed if I was in congress that some lower level staffer is effectively making laws; my job. Or it could be that lazy ass congress critters prefer that method as it gets them off the hook for any repercussions.

Our government is out of control.

(01-18-2024 03:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 11:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 11:34 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 11:20 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 11:09 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Im sure there will be some disruption, but a little pruning of the unelected administrative state would be an overall positive

"Some disruption" is a very kind way to put it. Removing Chevron will be the greatest win for plaintiffs lawyers in years. Just go court shopping for whatever district gives you the best chance to draw the correct judge and they can throw out basically any administrative agency regulation or action if it's even the slightest bit vague and not directly spelled out in the law.

So you are in essence in favor of unelected bureaucrats determining regulations.

If my choices are unelected but probably at least somewhat qualified people in that field determining regulation vs unelected judges with zero experience or knowledge in that field determining regulations (and in most cases a complete lack of them) I'm personally taking option 1. I'd be fine with an option 3 where you had a functional legislative branch that could quickly clear up any of these ambiguities, but that option ain't on the table.

Only because they can now rely on regulators to do the things they are afraid to do.

You used one sentence to say what it took me 3 paragraphs to say, well done.

STACI BARBER, Plaintiff,
vs.
KATY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT;
BRYAN SCOTT ROUNDS, Principal of Cardiff Junior High sued in his individual and official )
capacities, Defendants


Go get the anti-Constitutional SOBs.

(03-25-2024 11:56 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  STACI BARBER, Plaintiff,
vs.
KATY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT;
BRYAN SCOTT ROUNDS, Principal of Cardiff Junior High sued in his individual and official )
capacities, Defendants


Go get the anti-Constitutional SOBs.

But what will it take? A legal dagger or a silver bullet. The legal dagger will stop it for a while, but like all of the unholy they will rise in their death to threaten true life again. Perhaps the law needs to issue silver bullets, or wooden stakes and hammers.

(03-25-2024 11:56 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  STACI BARBER, Plaintiff,
vs.
KATY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT;
BRYAN SCOTT ROUNDS, Principal of Cardiff Junior High sued in his individual and official )
capacities, Defendants


Go get the anti-Constitutional SOBs.

Unless her facts are wrong, the lawyer who is defending Katy on this should be fired for wasting taxpayer dollars.

(03-26-2024 12:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 11:56 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  STACI BARBER, Plaintiff,
vs.
KATY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT;
BRYAN SCOTT ROUNDS, Principal of Cardiff Junior High sued in his individual and official )
capacities, Defendants


Go get the anti-Constitutional SOBs.

But what will it take? A legal dagger or a silver bullet. The legal dagger will stop it for a while, but like all of the unholy they will rise in their death to threaten true life again. Perhaps the law needs to issue silver bullets, or wooden stakes and hammers.

Prayer Constitutionally belongs back in all schools, public and private. Period. In God We Trust. So Trust in God.

(03-26-2024 12:16 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 12:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 11:56 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  STACI BARBER, Plaintiff,
vs.
KATY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT;
BRYAN SCOTT ROUNDS, Principal of Cardiff Junior High sued in his individual and official )
capacities, Defendants


Go get the anti-Constitutional SOBs.

But what will it take? A legal dagger or a silver bullet. The legal dagger will stop it for a while, but like all of the unholy they will rise in their death to threaten true life again. Perhaps the law needs to issue silver bullets, or wooden stakes and hammers.

Prayer Constitutionally belongs back in all schools, public and private. Period. In God We Trust. So Trust in God.

Christ will triumph! But there are so many we need to help before then. These people are seeking to corrupt the minds of the innocents. Let us not be fitted for millstones!

(01-18-2024 12:52 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 11:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 11:34 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 11:20 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 11:09 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Im sure there will be some disruption, but a little pruning of the unelected administrative state would be an overall positive

"Some disruption" is a very kind way to put it. Removing Chevron will be the greatest win for plaintiffs lawyers in years. Just go court shopping for whatever district gives you the best chance to draw the correct judge and they can throw out basically any administrative agency regulation or action if it's even the slightest bit vague and not directly spelled out in the law.

So you are in essence in favor of unelected bureaucrats determining regulations.

If my choices are unelected but probably at least somewhat qualified people in that field determining regulation vs unelected judges with zero experience or knowledge in that field determining regulations (and in most cases a complete lack of them) I'm personally taking option 1. I'd be fine with an option 3 where you had a functional legislative branch that could quickly clear up any of these ambiguities, but that option ain't on the table.

You have more faith in bureaucrats that those of us who have experience with them. They are there to justify their position and salary.

You act like there are good options to have faith in here. Am I supposed to have faith with increased deregulation private entities are going to self police in ways that ensure public safety even if it decreases profits? I'd have to be a legit retard to buy into that, and that's not me calling all corporations evil, it's not their jobs to concern themselves with anything else but maximizing shareholder profits.

I actually agree with Trump's plan to re-introduce Schedule F. Even if I know that in the short term the people he would bring in would do a whole lot of things I wouldn't like I think the President should have a lot more power to hire and fire civil service employees to bring in people who will help him implement his policy vision vs trying to hold it up. If this country were to actually elect someone who shares my economic policy visions I wouldn't want these clowns working behind the scenes to hold it up, I'd want that President to be able to fire those people and hire those committed to what he wants to do, because elections have consequences.

(03-26-2024 10:02 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 12:52 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 11:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 11:34 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 11:20 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  "Some disruption" is a very kind way to put it. Removing Chevron will be the greatest win for plaintiffs lawyers in years. Just go court shopping for whatever district gives you the best chance to draw the correct judge and they can throw out basically any administrative agency regulation or action if it's even the slightest bit vague and not directly spelled out in the law.

So you are in essence in favor of unelected bureaucrats determining regulations.

If my choices are unelected but probably at least somewhat qualified people in that field determining regulation vs unelected judges with zero experience or knowledge in that field determining regulations (and in most cases a complete lack of them) I'm personally taking option 1. I'd be fine with an option 3 where you had a functional legislative branch that could quickly clear up any of these ambiguities, but that option ain't on the table.

You have more faith in bureaucrats that those of us who have experience with them. They are there to justify their position and salary.

You act like there are good options to have faith in here. Am I supposed to have faith with increased deregulation private entities are going to self police in ways that ensure public safety even if it decreases profits? I'd have to be a legit retard to buy into that, and that's not me calling all corporations evil, it's not their jobs to concern themselves with anything else but maximizing shareholder profits.

I actually agree with Trump's plan to re-introduce Schedule F. Even if I know that in the short term the people he would bring in would do a whole lot of things I wouldn't like I think the President should have a lot more power to hire and fire civil service employees to bring in people who will help him implement his policy vision vs trying to hold it up. If this country were to actually elect someone who shares my economic policy visions I wouldn't want these clowns working behind the scenes to hold it up, I'd want that President to be able to fire those people and hire those committed to what he wants to do, because elections have consequences.

I don't wish to have a group of unelected, faceless zealots dictating unattainable standards such as those just introduced for tailpipe emissions. Anyone with a brain see's they are pushing us to EV's regardless of the fact that the technology is not there yet.

(03-26-2024 10:23 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 10:02 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 12:52 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 11:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 11:34 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  So you are in essence in favor of unelected bureaucrats determining regulations.

If my choices are unelected but probably at least somewhat qualified people in that field determining regulation vs unelected judges with zero experience or knowledge in that field determining regulations (and in most cases a complete lack of them) I'm personally taking option 1. I'd be fine with an option 3 where you had a functional legislative branch that could quickly clear up any of these ambiguities, but that option ain't on the table.

You have more faith in bureaucrats that those of us who have experience with them. They are there to justify their position and salary.

You act like there are good options to have faith in here. Am I supposed to have faith with increased deregulation private entities are going to self police in ways that ensure public safety even if it decreases profits? I'd have to be a legit retard to buy into that, and that's not me calling all corporations evil, it's not their jobs to concern themselves with anything else but maximizing shareholder profits.

I actually agree with Trump's plan to re-introduce Schedule F. Even if I know that in the short term the people he would bring in would do a whole lot of things I wouldn't like I think the President should have a lot more power to hire and fire civil service employees to bring in people who will help him implement his policy vision vs trying to hold it up. If this country were to actually elect someone who shares my economic policy visions I wouldn't want these clowns working behind the scenes to hold it up, I'd want that President to be able to fire those people and hire those committed to what he wants to do, because elections have consequences.

I don't wish to have a group of unelected, faceless zealots dictating unattainable standards such as those just introduced for tailpipe emissions. Anyone with a brain see's they are pushing us to EV's regardless of the fact that the technology is not there yet.

And I don't wish to have a group of people unaccountable to anyone other than major shareholders in charge of ensuring that all the proper safety inspections of airplanes have been done.

(03-26-2024 12:18 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 10:23 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 10:02 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 12:52 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 11:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  If my choices are unelected but probably at least somewhat qualified people in that field determining regulation vs unelected judges with zero experience or knowledge in that field determining regulations (and in most cases a complete lack of them) I'm personally taking option 1. I'd be fine with an option 3 where you had a functional legislative branch that could quickly clear up any of these ambiguities, but that option ain't on the table.

You have more faith in bureaucrats that those of us who have experience with them. They are there to justify their position and salary.

You act like there are good options to have faith in here. Am I supposed to have faith with increased deregulation private entities are going to self police in ways that ensure public safety even if it decreases profits? I'd have to be a legit retard to buy into that, and that's not me calling all corporations evil, it's not their jobs to concern themselves with anything else but maximizing shareholder profits.

I actually agree with Trump's plan to re-introduce Schedule F. Even if I know that in the short term the people he would bring in would do a whole lot of things I wouldn't like I think the President should have a lot more power to hire and fire civil service employees to bring in people who will help him implement his policy vision vs trying to hold it up. If this country were to actually elect someone who shares my economic policy visions I wouldn't want these clowns working behind the scenes to hold it up, I'd want that President to be able to fire those people and hire those committed to what he wants to do, because elections have consequences.

I don't wish to have a group of unelected, faceless zealots dictating unattainable standards such as those just introduced for tailpipe emissions. Anyone with a brain see's they are pushing us to EV's regardless of the fact that the technology is not there yet.

And I don't wish to have a group of people unaccountable to anyone other than major shareholders in charge of ensuring that all the proper safety inspections of airplanes have been done.

Here's the difference. If a Boeing airplane goes down due to neglect then lawyers are lined up around the block to represent families. There is a financial incentive to not have defective planes. What's the recourse for egregious regulations by bureaucrats trying to push climate change agendas?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/2...tioner.pdf
and
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/2...0Brief.pdf

(04-09-2024 04:52 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/2...tioner.pdf

SCOTUS should prioritize these. The deceitful Dems only use these as obstacles counting on the time it takes to swat away their lies and bogus claims. The filing is the travesty which needs to be punished.

(03-26-2024 01:00 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 12:18 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 10:23 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 10:02 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(01-18-2024 12:52 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  You have more faith in bureaucrats that those of us who have experience with them. They are there to justify their position and salary.

You act like there are good options to have faith in here. Am I supposed to have faith with increased deregulation private entities are going to self police in ways that ensure public safety even if it decreases profits? I'd have to be a legit retard to buy into that, and that's not me calling all corporations evil, it's not their jobs to concern themselves with anything else but maximizing shareholder profits.

I actually agree with Trump's plan to re-introduce Schedule F. Even if I know that in the short term the people he would bring in would do a whole lot of things I wouldn't like I think the President should have a lot more power to hire and fire civil service employees to bring in people who will help him implement his policy vision vs trying to hold it up. If this country were to actually elect someone who shares my economic policy visions I wouldn't want these clowns working behind the scenes to hold it up, I'd want that President to be able to fire those people and hire those committed to what he wants to do, because elections have consequences.

I don't wish to have a group of unelected, faceless zealots dictating unattainable standards such as those just introduced for tailpipe emissions. Anyone with a brain see's they are pushing us to EV's regardless of the fact that the technology is not there yet.

And I don't wish to have a group of people unaccountable to anyone other than major shareholders in charge of ensuring that all the proper safety inspections of airplanes have been done.

Here's the difference. If a Boeing airplane goes down due to neglect then lawyers are lined up around the block to represent families. There is a financial incentive to not have defective planes. What's the recourse for egregious regulations by bureaucrats trying to push climate change agendas?

Win elections. I fully support Trump's Schedule F executive order allowing him or any future president to fire bureaucrats and hire people who want to implement the policies he wants. Not because I want the policies Trump wants, but because I know damn well if a President who supported my brand of politics ever won these same clowns would try to stop/stall a lot of the policies I'd want him/her to implement. The president should have wide ranging power to hire the people he wants to do things the way he wants to do them.

Also don't seem like threats of lawsuits have kept safety standards high at Boeing. Seems like they made the decision that settling lawsuits and allegedly murdering whistleblowers is better for the bottom line, and they are probably correct.

Alvorado v. Austin

Quote: JUST IN: On a 9-4 vote, 3rd Circuit denies en banc review in PA case about whether date requirement for absentee ballots is enforceable Doc: https://t.co/IDYaXq2Wwg 3rd Cir Panel held 2-1 last month it is enforceable under federal law https://t.co/3RI6p96Nuo

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) April 30, 2024