ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brett Kavanaugh , environmental issues , supreme court cases , supreme court decisions

Reply
Old 23rd April 2020, 03:13 PM   #1
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,339
Supreme Court Sides with Environmentalists

In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court today sided with clean water advocates in a case involving dumping pollutants into water.

The Clean Water Act says that companies, or governments, or whoever, cannot dump pollutants into streams, lakes or oceans without a permit. On the island of Maui, a sewage treatement plant was dumping.....stuff....into wells. However, testing showed that from the wells, it went into groundwater and ultimately ended up in the ocean. They didn't have a permit to dump in the ocean.

The Trump administration sided with the polluters saying that it was ok to pump stuff into the ground. The environmentalists said that if it went into the groundwater, and from there into the ocean, that's really no different than dumping it directly into the ocean. The court, in a 6-3 decision agreed with the environmentalists. Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the four Democratically appointed justices.

It is often said that Kavanaugh is a Trump lapdog and will side with him every time, but the record shows otherwise. Once more, he shows that he has at least a little bit of an independent streak. He's no Bill Kennedy, but he also isn't Clarence Thomas, for which we can all be grateful.

(Just in case there's any doubt, I think the majority opinion is pretty much a no brainer. It's rather obvious the intent of the law was to keep pollutants out of waterways. The fact that it goes through groundwater first is hardly a good reason for allowing pollution.)

Here's a link to a CNN story on the opinion.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/23/supr...ater-case.html
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2020, 03:25 PM   #2
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 44,537
Did they have a permit to dump in the wells?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2020, 03:30 PM   #3
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,339
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Did they have a permit to dump in the wells?
Presumably, but it would be a state issue. The Supreme Court was covering the Clean Water Act and federal law.

I think that only applies to "navigable waterways". I said "streams", but I think they have to be navigable streams. I don't know the exact definition of "navigable". Of course, any stream that isn't navigable will end up in the ocean, possibly passing into some other navigable waterway before it does, so it would effectively ban all dumping without a permit.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2020, 03:48 PM   #4
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,395
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
It is often said that Kavanaugh is a Trump lapdog and will side with him every time, but the record shows otherwise. Once more, he shows that he has at least a little bit of an independent streak. He's no Bill Kennedy, but he also isn't Clarence Thomas, for which we can all be grateful.
Yes, he occasionally sides with judges on the left.

But, when there are major political issues (such as on gerrymandering, or immigration, or the census question) he seems to side with the Republicans.

From Time Magazine
Leo and his allies predict that Kavanaugh will evolve to be more like Alito, who is ideologically to the right of Roberts, less willing to compromise or inclined toward consensus. There is some data to support this conclusion. According to Feldman, Kavanaugh sided with Alito 91% of the time in his first-term.

So assuming that he might actually be a "swing vote" based on a case like this might be premature.

(Heck, the cynic in me says that he may just be voting that way to try to salvage his reputation... in a 'safe' vote that the right-wing was going to lose anyways, make yourself look like you might be reasonable. Call him the Susan Collins of the Supreme Court.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2020, 04:06 PM   #5
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 18,946
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
(Just in case there's any doubt, I think the majority opinion is pretty much a no brainer.
Which tells you a lot about the 3 who dissented
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2020, 04:26 PM   #6
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 12,865
Quote:
The Trump administration sided with the polluters saying that it was ok to pump stuff into the ground.

That's about as surprising as ticks on a deer.

I agree that it tells us A LOT about the 3 dissenting judges. And it ain't good.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2020, 06:55 PM   #7
applecorped
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Which tells you a lot about the 3 who dissented
well, it tells you anyway
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2020, 09:46 PM   #8
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 18,934
This is your reminder that heuristics indicate Kavanaugh is probably a better supreme Court Justice than Sotomayor.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2020, 06:27 AM   #9
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,680
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Yes, he occasionally sides with judges on the left.

But, when there are major political issues (such as on gerrymandering, or immigration, or the census question) he seems to side with the Republicans.

From Time Magazine
Leo and his allies predict that Kavanaugh will evolve to be more like Alito, who is ideologically to the right of Roberts, less willing to compromise or inclined toward consensus. There is some data to support this conclusion. According to Feldman, Kavanaugh sided with Alito 91% of the time in his first-term.

So assuming that he might actually be a "swing vote" based on a case like this might be premature.

(Heck, the cynic in me says that he may just be voting that way to try to salvage his reputation... in a 'safe' vote that the right-wing was going to lose anyways, make yourself look like you might be reasonable. Call him the Susan Collins of the Supreme Court.)
I like to think (naively maybe) the justices side with how they interpret the law not with any particular party.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2020, 06:33 AM   #10
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,820
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
I like to think (naively maybe) the justices side with how they interpret the law not with any particular party.
That's pretty damned naive.

So naive, in fact, I don't believe you.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2020, 06:45 AM   #11
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,339
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
I like to think (naively maybe) the justices side with how they interpret the law not with any particular party.
That would be ideal, but the fact that there are so many justices that are considered reliably conservative or reliably liberal suggests that doesn't really happen often. The fact that we occasionally have people split with their faction is a welcome sign that maybe at least there's a little bit of independent thought.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2020, 08:50 AM   #12
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,170
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
So assuming that he might actually be a "swing vote" based on a case like this might be premature.
I don't think that's the point. Yes, he's a conservative jurist. Presidents are entitled to appoint jurists with ideological views. The point is that he's not a lapdog. He won't side with Trump just because it's Trump.

It's also silly to think that the Trump administration will always take a conservative position on court cases. Trump is a populist, not a conservative.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2020, 09:54 AM   #13
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,534
I never heard anybody say he'd be a 100% predictable lapdog on all cases. What people were saying was that he was there to protect Trump when he acts like a dictator because he sees the Presidency as pretty much a dictatorship anyway. That's a narrower, more specific issue which doesn't include anything environmental anywhere in it.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2020, 11:20 AM   #14
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,057
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
I never heard anybody say he'd be a 100% predictable lapdog on all cases. What people were saying was that he was there to protect Trump when he acts like a dictator because he sees the Presidency as pretty much a dictatorship anyway. That's a narrower, more specific issue which doesn't include anything environmental anywhere in it.
Exactly this.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2020, 11:34 AM   #15
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21,339
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
I never heard anybody say he'd be a 100% predictable lapdog on all cases. What people were saying was that he was there to protect Trump when he acts like a dictator because he sees the Presidency as pretty much a dictatorship anyway. That's a narrower, more specific issue which doesn't include anything environmental anywhere in it.
Hmmm.....not sure I can go along with that assessment. Let me do some fishing for some evidence.


I would like to ask anyone what they think the worst decision of the Kavanaugh era has been. Where can we find evidence that the replacement of Kennedy with Kavanaugh has caused the Supreme Court to go to Hell in a handbasket?

I'll say my biases in advance. My own take on the Supreme Court is that they ought to follow what the law actually is, as opposed to what they think the law ought to be. I think "judicial activisim" is a real thing, found on the left and on the right, and it is not a good thing. So, if a ruling upheld a law that was very harmful, I would call it a good ruling unless there were an obvious constitutional reason why the law was not simply bad, but also unconstitutional. I rarely disagreed with Justice Kennedy, but on those rare occasions I did disagree, I usually was with the conservatives.

So, for people who think Kavanaugh will be the fifth vote for some really awful rulings, I would like to know if we have already seen that in his record, so I can see if I agree or disagree with the opinions that others find awful.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2020, 11:42 AM   #16
gabeygoat
Graduate Poster
 
gabeygoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,251
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Presidents are entitled to appoint jurists
Other than Obama



Anyhow, this is 2020, and yet this is good news. WTH? Cats and dogs, living together
__________________
"May I interest you in some coconut milk?" ~Akhenaten Wallabe Esq
gabeygoat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2020, 12:26 PM   #17
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,057
Deleted
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 25th April 2020 at 12:30 PM.
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2020, 01:56 PM   #18
applecorped
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
Originally Posted by gabeygoat View Post
Other than Obama



Anyhow, this is 2020, and yet this is good news. WTH? Cats and dogs, living together
Cats and dogs have been living together quite comfortably for hundreds of years
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2020, 01:43 PM   #19
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,170
Originally Posted by gabeygoat View Post
Other than Obama
You caught my mistake, but didn't actually correct it.

Presidents are entitled to nominate jurists with ideological views.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2020, 01:45 PM   #20
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,170
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
I never heard anybody say he'd be a 100% predictable lapdog on all cases. What people were saying was that he was there to protect Trump when he acts like a dictator because he sees the Presidency as pretty much a dictatorship anyway. That's a narrower, more specific issue which doesn't include anything environmental anywhere in it.
I think you must be confused about what a dictatorship is. Actual dictators get to dictate environmental policy too, it isn't somehow immune to their whims.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2020, 12:27 PM   #21
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,934
People have been fighting against the Imperial Presidency long before Trump or Obama, and will continue long past when they're gone.

I'd like those of you concerned about it right now to remember this when "your guy", for various definitions of your and guy, is next in power.

But I won't hold my breath.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2020, 02:59 PM   #22
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,170
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
People have been fighting against the Imperial Presidency long before Trump or Obama, and will continue long past when they're gone.

I'd like those of you concerned about it right now to remember this when "your guy", for various definitions of your and guy, is next in power.

But I won't hold my breath.
I said before Trump was elected that the presidency was too powerful. I also said that I hoped Trump's election would help liberals realize that. For the most part, they haven't. Most of them think only Trump is the problem.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2020, 04:02 PM   #23
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,622
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I said before Trump was elected that the presidency was too powerful. I also said that I hoped Trump's election would help liberals realize that. For the most part, they haven't. Most of them think only Trump is the problem.
Hmmm, how can you think the Presidency is too powerful, but also cheer on and support Trump for taking more power/ignoring any constraints on his power?

Don't worry about answering, I'm pretty sure it's the same way conservatives howled about Obama issuing executive orders made him a dictator, then turned around and praised Trump for issuing executive orders. They went so far as crowing about the number of EO's he issued as an example of his accomplishments!
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2020, 05:42 PM   #24
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,170
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Hmmm, how can you think the Presidency is too powerful, but also cheer on and support Trump for taking more power/ignoring any constraints on his power?
He hasn't really done either of those things, except in your mind.

Quote:
Don't worry about answering, I'm pretty sure it's the same way conservatives howled about Obama issuing executive orders made him a dictator
I never thought Obama was a dictator.

And executive orders are a normal function of all presidencies. The scope of power of an executive order is defined by the constitution and/or legislation. To the extent that you or I think an order is a bad use of a proper scope, that's a political issue to be solved by who we elect as president. To the extent that the scope itself is too large, that's something for Congress to fix.

Quote:
They went so far as crowing about the number of EO's he issued as an example of his accomplishments!
Phone and pen, phone and pen. Did you complain then? No, you didn't.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2020, 03:50 AM   #25
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,622
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
He hasn't really done either of those things, except in your mind.
I was going to respond to this with a laughing dog, but then I remembered who I am talking to. So, rather than laugh at the ignorance (feigned or genuine), I will attempt to educate you on what has been basic, common knowledge for the entire world for some time now.

Trump routinely ignores court orders, which is ignoring any constraints on his power from the Judicial branch.
Trump ignores Congressional Subpoenas, and routinely circumvents the Constitutionally mandated Senate approval for his cabinet members by appointing "acting" cabinet officials, which is ignoring constraints on his power from the Legislative branch.
Trump recently claimed "total authority" to order states to reopen, and in fact claimed total authority period: "When somebody's the president of the United States, the authority is total," he said. This, hopefully even you can see, is taking more power.

So now that you have seen your error, I am confident that you will immediately stop supporting Trump. In no way will you spout any twisted logic that attempts to justify these power grabs which are greater in scope and number than any previous President.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2020, 06:00 PM   #26
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,170
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Trump routinely ignores court orders, which is ignoring any constraints on his power from the Judicial branch.
I'm not going to go through all of these to point out your flaws. The first one will do. he story itself is outdated. Trump didn't ignore the court, he just didn't act quickly enough to satisfy you.

A president who doesn't unblock people on Twitter fast enough isn't exactly the second coming of Stalin.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2020, 04:37 AM   #27
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,622
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I'm not going to go through all of these to point out your flaws. The first one will do. he story itself is outdated. Trump didn't ignore the court, he just didn't act quickly enough to satisfy you.

A president who doesn't unblock people on Twitter fast enough isn't exactly the second coming of Stalin.
Wow, I am so shocked that you used twisted logic to defend Trump for doing exactly what you complained about. Totally blown away.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2020, 05:19 AM   #28
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,170
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Wow, I am so shocked that you used twisted logic to defend Trump for doing exactly what you complained about. Totally blown away.
Of all the presidential overreaches in US history, blocking people on Twitter has to be at the bottom. But it's the first thing that sprang to your mind.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2020, 05:58 AM   #29
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,622
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Of all the presidential overreaches in US history, blocking people on Twitter has to be at the bottom. But it's the first thing that sprang to your mind.
It was the first of many examples I provided. But hey, it certainly makes clear how worried you are about Presidential over reaches! If you can ignore one example out of many on a technicality, then you can had wave away everything else, and Trump is perfect!
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2020, 06:23 AM   #30
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,170
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
It was the first of many examples I provided. But hey, it certainly makes clear how worried you are about Presidential over reaches! If you can ignore one example out of many on a technicality, then you can had wave away everything else, and Trump is perfect!
Iím concerned about the office itself being too powerful. Iím not concerned about Trump specifically. Any president in office will use the powers available to him, thatís inevitable. The only way to change that is to change what those powers are, not who holds them.

You are worried about Trump specifically, and not the office itself being too powerful. Every argument you have made is about Trump specifically.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2020, 06:36 AM   #31
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,622
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Iím concerned about the office itself being too powerful. Iím not concerned about Trump specifically. Any president in office will use the powers available to him, thatís inevitable. The only way to change that is to change what those powers are, not who holds them.

You are worried about Trump specifically, and not the office itself being too powerful. Every argument you have made is about Trump specifically.
Every argument I have made is about Trump specifically ignoring any constraints on the powers of the Presidency as well as taking more power. If you don't care about these efforts, or worse actively support them, then your claims to care about the office being too powerful ring as true as .... well as every deeply held value that conservatives espoused before Trump that they are completely against now. Par for the course, I guess!
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2020, 07:47 AM   #32
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,170
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Every argument I have made is about Trump specifically
Exactly. You are under the mistaken impression that Trump is the problem.

Quote:
ignoring any constraints on the powers of the Presidency as well as taking more power. If you don't care about these efforts
No, I don't really care that Trump blocked people on Twitter.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2020, 08:22 AM   #33
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,622
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Exactly. You are under the mistaken impression that Trump is the problem.
Yes, the person who has done that which you pretend to be concerned about to comically extreme levels is clearly worth cheering on.



Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, I don't really care that Trump
did what you pretended to be concerned presidents doing. Exactly. It demonstrates that this, like every other deeply held conservative value, can be discarded on a whim to support your guy.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2020, 09:16 AM   #34
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,170
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Yes, the person who has done that which you pretend to be concerned about
Once again, my concern is with the scope of presidential power. ALL presidents use their power. You cannot expect them to do otherwise. Who is president isn't the problem, what powers are vested in the presidency is. Replacing Trump will not change the scope of presidential power. Idiocy is required to think that it would.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2020, 09:46 AM   #35
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,622
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Once again, my concern is with the scope of presidential power. ALL presidents use their power. You cannot expect them to do otherwise. Who is president isn't the problem, what powers are vested in the presidency is. Replacing Trump will not change the scope of presidential power. Idiocy is required to think that it would.
Ignoring Trump's unconstitutional power grabs seems to be a stupid way to be concerned with the scope of presidential power. But, again, a conservative who claims to care about something right up until his guy does it is par for the course. Let's not forget, before you said you didn't care that Trump has expanded the scope of Presidential power, you said that Trump hadn't expanded it. I expect the next part of this dance will follow the typical pattern and be something along the lines of how it's good that Trump unconstitutionally expanded presidential power because....something something Obama.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2020, 09:53 AM   #36
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,170
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Ignoring Trump's unconstitutional power grabs seems to be a stupid way to be concerned with the scope of presidential power.
Yeah, I need to be real concerned that Trump blocked people on Twitter.

Truly frightening stuff. The horror, the horror....
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2020, 10:02 AM   #37
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,622
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yeah, I need to be real concerned that Trump blocked people on Twitter.

Truly frightening stuff. The horror, the horror....
Yes, I know you aren't concerned with Presidential abuses of power, you know you aren't concerned with Presidential abuses of power, it's just something you say when you want to complain about a Democratic Pres. Thank you for continuing to demonstrate how deeply help conservative values work!
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2020, 10:43 AM   #38
Safe-Keeper
Philosopher
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,061
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Wow, I am so shocked that you used twisted logic to defend Trump for doing exactly what you complained about. Totally blown away.
Like Christians desperately defending God and the Bible, no matter what.

"No, no, you don't understand, God had to slaughter all those completely innocent Egyptian children! Because otherwise the Pharaoh wouldn't have had free will! God hardened the Pharaoh's heart? Oh, but it was still good, because, because, er..."
__________________
"He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs
"I cannot say is is suffering from a pathological narcissistic personality disorder, but I think it is clear he is doing a perfect impersonation of someone who is." --Ladewig
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2020, 10:57 AM   #39
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,908
A study in contradictions.

Then:
Originally Posted by Ziggurat
You seem to be arguing that as long as they didn't violate the law, then there's no problem, no reason for concern, and no reason to voice discontent.

That is illogical.
References to Orwell follow from there:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11142533

Now:
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yeah, I need to be real concerned that Trump blocked people on Twitter.

Truly frightening stuff. The horror, the horror....
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2020, 11:48 AM   #40
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,170
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
A study in contradictions.

Then:

References to Orwell follow from there:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post11142533

Now:
There's no contradiction at all. Some things which are illegal are of considerable consequence, and some things which are illegal are of little consequence. Similarly, some things which are not illegal are of considerable consequence, and some things which are not illegal are of little consequence. Legality doesn't determine significance. It's really not a hard concept, and it applies in both cases.

If you want to argue that Trump blocking people on twitter is of considerable consequence, then actually make the argument. But if you want to try to play this gotcha game, you need to actually understand what's being said, and you failed to do so.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:55 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.