SCOTUS thread

Me:  Like when it comes to education, the teachers, who are the experts should really be deciding things.

Normies:  OH MY GOD!  NO, what!  EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A SAY!

_____________________________________________________________________

Fast forward a few days:

Normies:  OH MY GOD!  The SC is RUINING EVERYTHING, only EXPERTS should be consulted on deciding things!

I mean, at least give me my props, for being right, again.

Okay, I am off to Jiffy Lube to try and convince the guys that work their that I know what the f#&% they are talking about when I hand them my debit card and pin number because my "johnson rod" needs to be replaced. 

 
teachercd said:
Me:  Like when it comes to education, the teachers, who are the experts should really be deciding things.

Normies:  OH MY GOD!  NO, what!  EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A SAY!

_____________________________________________________________________

Fast forward a few days:

Normies:  OH MY GOD!  The SC is RUINING EVERYTHING, only EXPERTS should be consulted on deciding things!

I mean, at least give me my props, for being right, again.

Okay, I am off to Jiffy Lube to try and convince the guys that work their that I know what the f#&% they are talking about when I hand them my debit card and pin number because my "johnson rod" needs to be replaced. 
Click to expand...






Do you know who decides whether a school board should be elected by the public?

 
Moiraine said:
Do you know who decides whether a school board should be elected by the public?
Click to expand...
State government in most states.  

It started back in New England though, like 300 years ago.  I am not sure if it is different in each state.

I don't mind the election part...just make a requirement that the people running have to be in education and/or have a teaching degree.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Archy1221 said:
Do you think Obama and Trump should be charged for the innocents killed with drone strikes?   
Do you believe Congress should be able to be sued for Libel or Slander for what they say during hearings?   
Click to expand...




Have presidents/members of congress had those things happen to them before?

 
Archy1221 said:
The executive branch should not and cannot have absolute authority on how to interpret laws made by Congress.   This is why Chevron was decided the way it was.   People having a hissy fit about Chevron have blinders on thinking the bureaucrats have zero power in deciding how to interpret the laws they are tasked at implementing.   They now don’t have the unchecked power they previously enjoyed.  
Click to expand...


The executive branch never has had absolute authority. The executive branch interprets, administers, and enforces. The courts are there to rule if the law, as interpreted and applied by the executive branch, is in line with the intent of the law. Chevron never gave the executive branch absolute authority and to suggest and argue otherwise, when you know better, is asinine, in poor faith, and rudimentary parroting of talking points. Bad take. 

 
Born N Bled Red said:
The executive branch never has had absolute authority. The executive branch interprets, administers, and enforces. The courts are there to rule if the law, as interpreted and applied by the executive branch, is in line with the intent of the law. Chevron never gave the executive branch absolute authority and to suggest and argue otherwise, when you know better, is asinine, in poor faith, and rudimentary parroting of talking points. Bad take. 
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 

So tell me, what does the Chevron ruling now do?   Are bureaurocrats no longer able to interpret law? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Biden: "In my first official act under the new authority granted to the Presidency by the Supreme Court. I am canceling the 2024 election do to lack of a viable candidate from another major party. This is an official act of the Office of the President of the United States."

 
Moiraine said:
Have presidents/members of congress had those things happen to them before?
Click to expand...
Not in America that I know of...Bush was supposed stand trial with the international court but that will never happen.

Born N Bled Red said:
Joe Biden: "In my first official act under the new authority granted to the Presidency by the Supreme Court. I am canceling the 2024 election do to lack of a viable candidate from another major party. This is an official act of the Office of the President of the United States."
Click to expand...
For real though, he could do that.

 
Dr. Strangelove said:
While I don't disagree, the question that @knapplc raised is of the previous system was the best we could do given the obvious constrains Congress has when writting laws.

We traded "annoying bureaucrats get it right most of the time" to "exploitable, non-experts making political choices where they have no business making them".

While not perfect, one system is preferable to another.
Click to expand...
Why are we presuming Republicans are operating in good faith? They were already inplementing this system prior to this ruling.

Republican EOs in red states have been passing laws eroding their citizens freedoms by taking decision making away from actual experts (medical professionals) and passing it to activists (politicians and religious zealots) wherever they can after Roe fell. Explicitly because Sky Daddy told them to. f#&% your freedoms.

The judiciary should be understood to be doing whatever is in the best interests of those pulling the strings in the GOP. Any argument otherwise is just a red herring trying to appear reasonable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
teachercd said:
Not in America that I know of...Bush was supposed stand trial with the international court but that will never happen.

For real though, he could do that.
Click to expand...




No he couldn’t. Well, he could, but he would go to jail. And I kinda doubt the ordere would be obeyed. But let’s say that happens.

The supreme court left it up to the courts to decide which actions are official. And those cases can wind up back in the supreme court. So the supreme court can make the decisions based on whether they like the president or not, although of course they would obfuscate it with lingo making it sound like it’s not what they’re doing. 

It’s actually crazy how many people are being fooled into thinking this is okay. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top