lawrocket

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but even if this hypothesis were correct (which has not been proven in any way by her words on the subject), how precisely would that differ from what the Koch Brothers, Exxon, Arabco, OPEC and all the others in the "old energy" fossil fuels do? You don't fear fossil fuels. Why fear a change to other forms of energy? I don't fear fossil fuels. I also don't have any more problem with the Kochs or Exxon than I do with Soros. They use their own money. What Klein and McKibben are suggesting is something different. The petrochemical industry is immoral. Bogeymen are immoral (yep. Framed in terms of morality like any good fag hatin' Christian) and therefore must be contained. Because they are immoral they must be controlled. The way to control any company is to take all of its profits and assets. Therefore, by use of the power of government they will take the assets and profits from the companies. Then the government will step in because the companies can no longer operate. The government has nationalizes the industry. But Klein said something that I had really not understood. They do not want the immediate death of the petrochemical industry. No. The profits are immoral for everyone else except the enlightened. And the enlightened know that the profits could be put to something much better. They want the company profits for themselves. This is the part that is ingenious. The petrochemical industry is horrible. Unless they run it! At worst, they want to run the industry for a few decades until something better comes along. Picture Animal Farm. Boxer was the strength that made the farm run. He was worked until he was no longer useful. Then sent to be rendered for glue. There it is. This is what worries me. Klein does my suggest that good environmentalists buy stock in Exxon and take over the board to make the company environmentally responsible. Rather, they suggest that the government, after a long campaign to make the public hate the industry, take the money and then take it over. This is worrisome. Klein is the one I pointed out previously who suggested that the burden of scientific proof with carbon pollution must be lowered in order to get the policy goals accomplished. The pieces fit. Klein is discussing a long term campaign for doing this. Get the people to hate the companies and it makes it easier to destroy them. As I said, most environmentalists don't think this way. But those who are the figureheads of it in terms of making policy have a whole lot to gain. They need merely invest time and rhetoric to put themselves in power. Well meaning dictators are to be feared. My wife is hotter than your wife.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/naomi-klein-on-the-power-of-fossil-fuel-divestment/ From the piece: Plenty of people here have made the argument that for many, climate alarmism is being used as an effort to further socialistic causes. That it is a power grab. A money grab. Unfortunately, Naomi Klein has confirmed that it is exactly a goal. These companies make money. It's interesting the way the socialist mind thinks. Those profits are so bad that nobody should have access to them. Except for the lefties, for whom those profits are legitimate and good if they go to them. Naomi Klein is a valuable resource. She is unfiltered and has little reason to think that this should be kept as inside knowledge. There are plenty of people who are legitimately concerned about carbon emissions who aren't commies or socialists. Who have no ambitions of turning the electricity generating capacity of the country into their own playground. But many of the powerful do. Those who play roles in policy making want that money for themselves. Recall the warnings of billvon and kallend about trusting someone when their paycheck is involved. For those like Klein and McKibben this is certainly and investment backed expectation. What do they want? Money. They want those profits and those companies. For them. I think the mainstream environmental movement would be wise to distance itself from this. But for those who think that there is nothing socialist at all in climate alarm, be advised that a couple of the loudest voices are proudly announcing what they want to do. Nationalize industries. Take profits not for others but for them to hand out to whomever they think worthy. Yes, this worries me. My wife is hotter than your wife.

Yet another thing about Cali. We don't have to be an energy importing state. We have oil. Water. Wind. Sunlight. Natural gas. And a remarkable aversion to exploit it. We could have more and deeper reservoirs. Nope. Gotta maintain river levels. We could use hydroelectric power from those reservoirs. No. Same problem. How about wind farms? No. Unsightly and kills a lot of critters. Solar power? No. Still too expensive and intensive. Nuclear power? Hahaha! We have a vast ocean right there. It would take 30 years just to get a pipeline built from the ocean to the inland. It's how it works here. My wife is hotter than your wife.

I wasn't meaning to be a dick. I was serious about it. the Obamacare decision? Congress has the power to wipe it out. Congress has the power to eliminate the ACA entirely. That was a case or pure statutory construction and not some grand Issue under the Amendments of personal rights. Those are much easier for Congress to do something about. Yes they are. I wasn't trying to be coy. I pointed out a specific example. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in order to overturn the Holding in Pollock. I agree totally. But there were some comments I saw where they suggested trying to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. It's a fool's errand but at least they were thinking properly as far as procedure goes. It's kinda like how the Second Amendment is on the books. The SCOTUS has recently affirmed it as an individual right. It will take a Constitutional a Amendment to get rid of that individual right now. Ain't gonna happen any time soon. So there are the methodologies. They are entirely separate from the pragmatic issues. It's like calling for any Constitutional Amendment. It's hard to do it. Extremely hard. So people have for the most part stopped trying. I totally get that. My wife is hotter than your wife.

Again. Almonds have caught on as the crazy high water use. But they pale in comparison to cotton, alfalfa and beef. That nice glass off moo juice? That is a LOT of water that goes into making it. Almonds do use plenty. But nobody wants to pay $6 for a Big Mac. My wife is hotter than your wife.

The SCOTUS isn't the final say. The income tax was found Unconstitutional by the SCOTUS over a century ago. Then the Constitution was amended, which specifically authorized an income tax. When a statute is found to be ambiguous, Congress may amend the statute to supersede the Court's opinion. These are the checks and balances that still stay in play. My wife is hotter than your wife.

What are your thoughts on "the tyranny of the majority"? There is a reason why there is a Constitution. To protect the rights of the minority that would otherwise be trampled upon. There is also a reason for checks and balances. Legislative drafts and passes laws. Executive enforces them. Courts interpret them. What are your thoughts on Courts becoming legislators? My wife is hotter than your wife.

Remember the Gretzky Rule? Funny how things change. My wife is hotter than your wife.

I'm not talking about Scalia or corporations. In talking about a court drafting legislation. What are your thoughts. My wife is hotter than your wife.

Roberts pointed out the hypocrisy of Ginsburg. There is enough to go around. My wife is hotter than your wife.

What a load of bollocks! SCOTUS has been doing that since the days of John Marshall. Scalia himself was among those who decided that corporations are people. Bloody hypocrite! Yep. And according to Ginsburg and Roberts, it has caused problems. Of all people, why are you defending something that has been done since the days of slavery? My wife is hotter than your wife.

Marriage streamlines this process. My wife is hotter than your wife.

What do you think about Chief Justice Roberts? My wife is hotter than your wife.

I find it ironic that Roberts in the second paragraph of his dissent wrote, "But this Court is not a legislature." After what he did yesterday. Then he wrote, "The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage." Yeah. But the Court can change the definition of a State. I do agree with one thing that Roberts wrote. It's the practical implications. IN fact, Roberts was sly enough to stick it to Justice Ginsburg in actually citing her criticism of Roe v. Wade. In a sense I agree with this. But I also am steadfastly in support of equal protection. Just look at the reasons without emotion and see why Roberts, for one, thought that the Court should have let the political process handle it. My wife is hotter than your wife.

Take your pick! Scalia is having a meltdown Scalia gets really cranky when things don't go his way. This is two days in a row. Scalia isn't always right. This is an example. My wife is hotter than your wife.

What do you mean by that? I have no issue with looking toward intent when something is vague or ambiguous. And I appreciate what GeorgiaDon wrote, as well. I see the point But when a word is defined and used it is clear. It is plain. The State. It means the State. And not the Federal government. Roberts made a very clear and cogent argument, with precedents, as to why there was ambiguity and Chevron deference. Yes. I am very free to disagree with clear and cogent arguments. He made a clear and cogent argument as to why the word State should not mean "state" in this instance it is also clear to me that the majority worked backwards. They dug for a reason to ignore the plain language. They then provided precedent, kinda saying, "we do this all the time." And in doing so, ignored the evidence that the specific intent of Congress was to leave federal subsidies out in order to induce the states to take t up. When thirty states or so didn't bite then the President said that Congress was only kidding. The all along meant to put that in so he went with it. And then thebSCOTUS ignored what the actual intent was in order to find a more general intent. "But he actually intended to murder the victim. He said he was going to hunt him down and stab him in the gut. It's what he did." "Yeah, but it was all a part of his general scheme to make the world a better place. Therefore we find no malice." I have a problem with this way of thinking. Again. I understand why that came about. For want of two of three words a whole government program is put at risk. Thus, as Roberts explained, precedent is to presume a law as Constitutional. It's also to presume a law is valid. Additionally, however, is that the first rule of statutory interpretation is to give words their plain meaning. Roberts eve wrote that the arguments of the plain meaning are "strong." then he wrote that a plain meaning may turn out untenable in light of the statute as a whole and cited a case. Then Roberts did something and did not cite previous authority. "in this instance the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase." Then Roberts cited Palmer:"reliance on context And structure in statutory interpretation is a subtle business calling for great wariness lest what professes tk be mere rendering becomes creation and attempted interpretation of legislation becomes legislation itself." Cite. Then Roberts wrote,"such reliance is appropriate in this case and leads us to conclude that [any Exchange gets tax credits]. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts and to avoid the type of calamities result that Congress plainly meant to avoid." see Page 21. What Roberts said is that he is legislating. They are fixing it. While other cases warned against it, fuck it. He gave this concern two paragraphs. Two paragraphs. Two effing paragraphs. And said despite the warnings of the past he is going to legislate it, anyway. In neither case cited by Roberts did the SCOTUS actually insert words. 510 US 332 was a case where both parties argued over the interpretation of a section of law. One said to meant one thing. The other said it meant another thing. The plain meaning failed so context was provided in the statutory scheme as a whole. And in 308 US 79, the SCOTUS refused to put words into a statute that would give power that the statute did not give. "petitioners ask us to say that district judges in twenty nine states have effective power... To set aside regulatory systems of these twenty nine states, with all the consequences implied for those communities. Congress gave no such power." As much as you want to talk about precedent, take a look at it. Take a look at where he did not cite to precedent. Take a look at where stare decisis was found to be inconsistent with the goals. Roberts inserted words into a statute that were not there. Context is for understanding a law. Context Had never before been used as justification for judicial you amending a law. This is not precedented. Otherwise Roberts would have provided cites tk where it was done before. Roberts merely cited the warnings against doing it and then did it anyway. My wife is hotter than your wife.

Fixed the title. Let's just call them weddings. My wife is hotter than your wife.

What do you mean by that? I have no issue with looking toward intent when something is vague or ambiguous. And I appreciate what GeorgiaDon wrote, as well. I see the point But when a word is defined and used it is clear. It is plain. The State. It means the State. And not the Federal government. It doesn't matter what a word means. It doesn't matter that the tax break was intended to induce the States into running their own exchanges. The specific intent was to exclude tax breaks for federal exchanges. The intent didn't work. The law did not work as intended. The actual specific intent of the statute was to leave it out. And it backfired. So the law was broken. And the SCOTUS ignored the specific intent in order to find some general intent. The Court played legislature. This is my problem with intent. One can find any degree of intent one wants. Congress meant to exclude federal subsidies? Well, they also intended for the ACA to work. When I go to Vegas I intend to win. So I bluffed the hell out of those guys and they called me on it? In order to make things right, I should just take the pot anyway. Only in politics. That's what I don't like the most. Political questions are the SCOTUS bread and butter. My wife is hotter than your wife.

He cites precedent for the logic of the majority. You haven't provided any for yours. Anyhow, the GOP must be relieved that they are off the hook for making any actual decisions beyond sniping. Of course. IT's a different viewpoint. SOme think words have meaning. Others think they can be disregarded. For a guy who hates lawyer bullshit I'm shocked at how frequently you approve of it. My wife is hotter than your wife.

It's Roberts' theory. It's a longstanding debate. I hope you're never on the losing end of being told "the statutory scheme obviously contemplates that your conduct is illegal" if you were to protest "there isn't a law against that." And j pray like hell Santorum doesn't make it in. He'll be a junkie for "intent." My wife is hotter than your wife.

I do not believe it should be dispositive. The reason is that laws, not legislative intent, govern our conduct. Period. When the legislature chooses to specifically fund a subsidy for state exchanges and then omits that funding from that which states do not participate in, then what happens? We look at the law and it says "if this then that. If not this? Then don't do that." The ONLY way a person can comply with a law is that the person can read it. Law: To increase educational opportunities, the we shall creatE the Federal University and shall consist of seven campuses with one each in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. Now, what does that mean? Shall the President then direct the construction of thirty more campuses? Hey, he thinks that there needs to be a bunch more and the intention is to increase educational opportunities. This is what happened. The President decided that despite the lack of Congressional authorization he'd fund the citizens of thirty states. For the purpose of improving insurance markets (that is, to grease the insurance companies to ensure profit by directing taxpayer funds to them) The SCOTUS has just approved dictator. See, intent can mean anything. One can find some intent and run with it. But we are not governed by intent. We are governed by words. And if they didn't read what they did because they had tk pass it first, then their bad. This is exactly why I don't like intent. Because intent isn't part of the law. The language of the law controls out conduct. We are left without notice of what a law means if laws themselves can be contradicted because "we don't think they really meant to limit it to a specific seven states." My wife is hotter than your wife.

Indeed. So what if the actual language that was passed didn't authorize it. To all future Presidents: when Congress hasn't authorized you to do something then fuck it. Go BIG! Congress hasn't declared war? Fuck it. Congress hasn't banned guns totally? Go for it! Congress hasn't done anything to show support for posse comitatus? Fuck it! Go for it! Just do it. My wife is hotter than your wife.

Take the Union of Concerned Scientists out and the group will look more legit. It's like citing a study by the society for the Advancement of Petrochemicals in the Environment. We know what the study will show. My wife is hotter than your wife.

Correct. It's like Obama supporters saying he's only doing what Bush did. That Cheney did it, too, is just a further indictment, in my mind. My wife is hotter than your wife.

More platitudes, coming from you, that's surprising........... Take one look at the current crime rate in Baltimore, then argue facts. This sounds like condoning the behavior. When the cops were the thugs the crime rate was down. When the cops had to stop being thugs it went up again. Baltimore should be instituting some proactive policing. It hasn't. The impression is they just don't know how to do. I saw what you wrote afterward, and I agree. On the other hand, cops have a legitimate reason to fear the system. Because cops know how it really works. Overcharging? You bet. My wife is hotter than your wife.