If you’re thinking “did the climate cultist senators actually ask Amy Coney Barrett questions on the climate crisis (scam)”, well, yes, they did
Barrett deflects senators’ questions on climate change
Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett refused to say whether she accepts the science of climate change, saying she lacks the expertise to know for sure and calling it a topic too controversial to get into.
On Wednesday, pressed at her confirmation hearing by Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Barrett framed acknowledgment of manmade climate change as a matter of policy, not science.
Barrett said Harris, the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee as well as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was trying to get her to state an opinion “on a very contentious matter of public debate, and I will not do that.â€
Barrett was responding to a series of questions from Harris, including whether she thinks the novel coronavirus is infectious, whether smoking causes cancer and whether “climate change is happening and it’s threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink.â€
The federal appeals court judge responded that she does think coronavirus is infectious and smoking causes cancer. She rebuffed Harris on the climate change question, however, for seeking to “solicit an opinion†on a “matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial.â€
The first two are established by science, 100%. The latter is simply inferred, and, if it is mostly caused by the burning of fossil fuels, as the article goes on to say, then why do so few Warmists give up their own use of fossil fuels? Perhaps Kamala should lead the way and stop flying all over the country in fossil fueled airplanes, which then require the requisite fossil fueled SUVs to get to campaign appearances.
(Business Insider) The Supreme Court is set to hear a case related to climate change in 2021. More than four in 10 voters (42%) surveyed by Pew Research Center in late July and early August said climate change was “very important” to their vote in the 2020 election.
Ann Carlson, a faculty director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA School of Law, told The New York Times she found Barrett’s response “disturbing.”
“It’s a dodge that fails to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are causing the planet to warm,” Carlson said.
Got that? It’s a dodge! Except, being a judge isn’t about political policy, it’s about rulings based on the law and Constitution. And consensus isn’t science, it’s politics.
AS we all know the left wants judges who legislate. They have always used the bench to get their agenda pushed through because for the most part their agenda(The radical aspects of it) have never been popular in the USA.
WE only have to look at the Michael Flynn case to see a radical judge legislating from the Bench. This judge refuses to throw out his case after the DOJ instructed him to do so. He has even brought in another judge to help him try FLYNN himself and no one is sure what the hell he is doing. He has the backing of the Appellate court who keeps throwing it back to him to make a decision but he refuses. This is a classic example of legislating from the bench.
All nominee’s refuse to answer questions of hypothetical nature, nor will they comment on cases already decided by the Supreme court. Of course she probably has an opinion but her opinion is irrelevant in matters of the constitution. What matters, or should matter is the constitution and it is why Roberts and Kavanaugh have become such disappointments for the Right. They are split about 50/50 between favoring the left or the right in their rulings.
This is how it should be because both sides, left and right, do not have a monopoly on the truth or Judicial excellence. There is a risk that another constitutionalist like ACB will rule much like Kavanaugh and Roberts. The left should not fear this court. It is IMO the near perfect court for AMERICA.
Now if the other three step down in Trumps time and get replaced with pure constitutionalism we will finally have a court that decides cases based upon the constitution and in most cases will rule in the Left’s favor about as often as they rule in the Right’s favor. A perfect court for a nation teetering on civil war because we closed our eyes and let CHINA INFILTRATE OUR SCHOOLS and FILL OUR CHILDREN’S and TEACHER’S heads with Rubbish.
It’s all a farce. If Judge Barrett said every last, silly thing Senatrix Kamala Harris Emhoff wanted her to stay, the Democrats would still vote against her, almost unanimously.
A Supreme Court Justice, and any judge, is supposed to weigh cases on their merits. What Mrs Emhoff is trying to do is get Mrs Barrett in a position of saying she would weigh any
global warmingclimate change cases based not on the law and the Constitution, but her personal feelings.“This is how it should be because both sides, left and right, do not have a monopoly on the truth or Judicial excellence. There is a risk that another constitutionalist like ACB will rule much like Kavanaugh and Roberts. The left should not fear this court. It is IMO the near perfect court for AMERICA.”
That is you opinion Est1950, and you are surely entitled to it. And while neither the right nor the left has a monopoly on the truth or judicial excellence can you name any recent decisions where the bench ruled for the meaning of the Constitution? Any where the left didn’t win what they failed to get legislatively? Now name three cases where the ruling of the SC was pro Constitution. Where the court actually stood up and stated they made the decision based on “the Constitution specifically says there is a right to an abortion” or here is the section that says a ACA mandate is legal because it’s a tax not an insurance premium”?
Frankly, in todays political war in America there most definitely is a monopoly on the Truth. And I say that because every single Democommie from Biden to Elwood lies, repeats lies and actually believes in those lies without remorse even when shown to be wrong. Democommies can’t handle the truth so they get the court to shove their desires down our throats.
Why the hell do you think all the leftocommies are going ape shit crazy because of Barrett? They are afraid of losing their ace in the hole to shove communism down our throats.
Trump 2020 Because WE have a monopoly on what is right in today’s America!
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-26NNW8EEb7U/X4Mpj1LX8-I/AAAAAAACd-Y/P96iliY1g8QOjQ5ap3-IuodHO8oidb-mwCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/fgdhg.jpg
You are what you accuse your political enemies of being Kye. 100 percent right and do not even second guess any political opinions you carry. At least that is how you present yourself to me. So here is your request.
May a state exclude church schools from a state-sponsored tuition aid program that supports students in other private schools, or does that exclusion amount to unconstitutional discrimination against religion?
That is unconstitutional discrimination based on religion, the court said in a 5-4 ruling in Espinoza vs. Montana.
Did Congress violate the separation of powers and the president’s executive authority when it created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2010 as an “independent bureau,†which would be led by a director who was appointed by the president but could not be fired except for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.â€
Yes, the court said in a 5-4 ruling in Seila Law vs. CFPB. Chief Justice Roberts said that putting a single director in charge of the agency and giving her a fixed term violates the president’s executive authority.
Are church-run schools entitled to a religious exemption from federal anti-discrimination laws when it comes to hiring and firing teachers ?
Yes, the court said in a 7-2 ruling in Our Lady of Guadalupe School vs. Morrissey-Berru. The decision, based on two cases from Los Angeles County, tossed out discrimination lawsuits filed by two former teachers who taught fifth grade. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, said the 1st Amendment and its protection for the free exercise of religion means the government cannot tell a church whom to employ for positions at a church school if the church deems those jobs critical to its religious mission. Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented.
Can a state require its appointed electors to cast their presidential ballots in the electoral college for the candidate who won the most popular support in the state?
Yes, the court said in a 9-0 ruling in Chiafalo vs. Washington. (Faithless electors can go rogue and vote for who they want. A win for the GOP in this case.
May the Trump administration exempt employers who cite religious or moral objections from part of the Affordable Care Act that requires providing no-cost contraceptives to employees?
Yes, the court said by a 7-2 vote in Little Sisters of the Poor vs. Pennsylvania.
May a New York grand jury require President Trump’s accountants and bankers to turn over records revealing his personal tax returns and financial dealings?
Yes, the court said in a 7-2 ruling in Trump vs. Vance. HOWEVER…….May three House committees require the president and his accountants to turn over a massive amount of financial and banking records going back to 2010? No, or not until the committees demonstrate to a judge why all the records are needed and are relevant to new legislation, the court said in another 7-2 ruling in Trump vs. Mazars USA.
These are just the cases this year KYE. I find it disconcerting that you refuse to actually look at facts that might put a chink in your armor protecting your political positions. (In your case your no different than the left….Supreme court bad because not EVERY ruling is one that you favor)No one has the perfect politics. Not you. Not me. Not The Elwoods of this world and you can rest assured that when I put something on these pages it is researched and debated among me and my colleagues.
Well, Est1950 you sure showed me. You correctly pointed out that I was blinded by my partisan views and should do some research before opening my mouth and inserting my foot. The same thing I accuse Elwood of doing.
I honestly have never heard or read about those decisions anywhere but here. But I’m not a lawyer either. I was spouting off my opinion without knowing “the rest of the story”.
BTW, I do try to “actually look at facts” but since I’m not an expert on SC decisions I rely on what I have been exposed to and as you can see I was not aware of those.
Just as I don’t have every fact about the SC I also don’t have every fact about Biden, Wuhan Commie Flu, masks, science, climate science and a plethora of assorted and sundry topics including economics in which I hold a degree. I just don’t know everything but I know I can rely on you to straighten me out when I need straightening. And I don’t mean that sarcastically either. I’m a grown up and can admit when I’m wrong. I was dead wrong!
Trump 2020 Cause we need an American in the WH not a Commie.
https://thepeoplescube.com/images/Stalin_No_Lives_Matter.jpg
…every single Democommie from Biden to Elwood lies, repeats lies and actually believes in those lies without remorse…
Nonsense. President Trump doesn’t lie? Repeatedly?
Kye has gone postal for being accused of not being perfect and sounding like a white supremacist. He’s likely not used to being criticized. Everything to him these days are commies, Democommies, traitors to be executed, voter fraud etc etc etc.
Kye proclaims: WE have a monopoly on what is right in today’s America!
He is so convinced of his superiority that all who disagree should be executed! Why would anyone take anything he types seriously?
Why do so many Americans disagree with the GOP’s power play with Judge Barrett? Because it’s basically unfair. But that’s political hardball. The GOP Senate majority of 2015-2016 approved Obama court appointees at a 28% clip, leaving 105 federal judgeships open for President Trump to nominate and be quickly confirmed by the GOP Senate. Sure, it’s unfair, but that’s political hardball.
If Mr. Trump is re-elected but the GOP loses the Senate, how many Trump nominees will be confirmed? Sure, it’s unfair, but that’s political hardball.
If Mr. Biden wins and with a Senate majority will the Dems increase the number of seats on federal courts where allowed by statute? They might. Sure, it’s unfair, but that’s political hardball.
We have become so partisan and hateful that there is little chance of compromise and progress. Congress is sitting on a bill to alleviate some of the financial hurt of Americans but can’t go forward until they push Ms. Barrett through before the election.
“Nonsense. President Trump doesn’t lie? Repeatedly?”
Perhaps but he doesn’t tell the RNC to force all candidates and supporters to lie along with him. You Democommies all read from the same page all the time word for word. You don’t even have to tell each other what to do because you’re so fukin corrupt you automatically know what to say, who to dox, when to duck and where to point.
“Kye has gone postal for being accused of not being perfect and sounding like a white supremacist. He’s likely not used to being criticized. Everything to him these days are commies, Democommies, traitors to be executed, voter fraud etc etc etc.”
First I haven’t “gone postal”. Secondly if you had the balls to read my response to Est1950 you would see I admitted both my ignorance and culpability which is more than YOU have EVER done at this blog. I also sincerely thanked him for pointing out my failure. Are you used to being criticized and when you are do you thank the person who criticized you like I just did? I think not! Everything with the former Democrat Party is commies, Democommies, traitors and traitors traditionally are executed, unless they’re Democommies then they run for president.
“Kye proclaims: WE have a monopoly on what is right in today’s America!”
Again, you don’t read. That was part of my thank you statement to Est1950. Get with the program. Or as your commie leader would say: Come on, man!
“He is so convinced of his superiority that all who disagree should be executed! Why would anyone take anything he types seriously?”
If you view me as your superior you are very observant, thank you. I myself see me as an average Patriotic, working American who pays his taxes, loves his neighbor and served his country with honor and pride. How do you see yourself? Incidentally, you don’t take anything seriously that infringes on your partisan stupidity so go stone your own glass house. Est1950 already stoned mine.
Hey Est1950, I again want to thank you for pointing out my ignorance and stupidity but I must ask you if you need to do that in the future please don’t compare me to Elwood. I really don’t think I’m that bad.
Trump 2020 Cause we don’t need Khlamydia as president.
Last month, Chicago recorded its deadliest September in more than 25 years as the city approaches 600 homicides in 2020 with a quarter of the year still left to go.
The Chicago Police Department on Thursday reported there were 81 homicides last month — the most for any September since 1993 when there were 84 — as well as 309 shooting incidents and 400 victims.
Through the first nine months of 2020, Chicago has reported 2,470 shootings — which have left 3,110 victims — and 588 homicides. The city already surpassed 2019’s homicide total by the end of August.
The number of September 2020 shooting incidents and shooting victims are also up 48% and 60%, respectively, over September 2019 totals.
Shootings and murders are up 50%. And they’re beating the nationwide increases. The victims are mainly “people of color”.
The nation’s second-largest county has recorded more homicides this year than in all of 2019, the majority of which – 95% – were people of color, the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office announced this week.
“Sorry, these are not the black lives that Democrats are looking for.” Stolen from Star Wars
Nonsense. President Trump doesn’t lie? Repeatedly?
In about 20 days, you’re going to see whom the people trust.
And it ain’t Gropin’ Joe.
Kye has gone postal for being accused of not being perfect and sounding like a white supremacist. He’s likely not used to being criticized. Everything to him these days are commies, Democommies, traitors to be executed, voter fraud etc etc etc.
Calling somebody names and lying about them is not criticism.
He is so convinced of his superiority that all who disagree should be executed! Why would anyone take anything he types seriously?
The one nobody takes seriously is you. He never said anything of the sort.
Why do so many Americans disagree with the GOP’s power play with Judge Barrett? Because it’s basically unfair.
They do? Can you cite this? From what I’ve seen, those paying attention like her. Even Difi said she was impressed.
But that’s political hardball. The GOP Senate majority of 2015-2016 approved Obama court appointees at a 28% clip, leaving 105 federal judgeships open for President Trump to nominate and be quickly confirmed by the GOP Senate. Sure, it’s unfair, but that’s political hardball.
Want some cheese with your whine?
If Mr. Trump is re-elected but the GOP loses the Senate, how many Trump nominees will be confirmed? Sure, it’s unfair, but that’s political hardball.
No more than any other R with a Demo Senate. You’d better get used to another 4 years of Trump filling all those Federal vacancies.
If Mr. Biden wins and with a Senate majority will the Dems increase the number of seats on federal courts where allowed by statute? They might. Sure, it’s unfair, but that’s political hardball.
They’ll do it anyway.
I take it this hardball thing is your way of telling us what happens if the Demos ever get the reins of power in our lifetime. You whine because your getting a taste of your own medicine.
Try to act like a man for a change.
We have become so partisan and hateful that there is little chance of compromise and progress. Congress is sitting on a bill to alleviate some of the financial hurt of Americans but can’t go forward until they push Ms. Barrett through before the election.
No, it’s because Pelosi Galore thinks holding the country (or at least the blue states) for ransom is going to win the election.
And what’s this “we”? The only one here so partisan and hateful is you.
This is just more of the tap dance that potential Justices are forced to perform for Senators.
As we all realize, Justices rarely rule contrary to their personal beliefs even though they construct complex legal loop-de-loops to justify their tightly held beliefs.
Ms. Barrett, a legal genius, just as was Justice Ginsburg, will rule in the opposite direction of Justice Ginsburg in nearly every case.
If the members of the high court, every one of whom is an acclaimed legal genius, can disagree 180 degrees about something as well-defined as the written law, what chance do any of the rest of us meer mortals have in being able to understand the edicts of our governments and how to best obey them?
If every law ever written is either “too broad” or “too narrow”, or has a disparity impact on one favorite group or another, then there is no law. There is only a never ending circus of seeking opinions you agree with, until your opponent dies or runs out of money.
The founders of our nation never intended any part of our government to have that much power.
RBG was no genius. If she was, she would have dropped out when Zippy had a Demo Senate.
As we all realize, Justices rarely rule contrary to their personal beliefs even though they construct complex legal loop-de-loops to justify their tightly held beliefs.
Never judge other people by yourself.
Some people do have principles.
Sadly, when Justices do rule contrary to their personal beliefs, it has always been the (purportedly) conservative Justices bending the knee to liberal nonsense. Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts went along with the cockamamie idea that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects employees against discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or transgender status in Bostock v Clayton County.
This bit of mischief will destroy women’s athletics, as males will infiltrate and destroy competition, and it will prohibit churches from discharging employees who flaunt their homosexual status or have same-sex ‘marriages’ while teaching in parochial schools. It is a rul in favor of deviancy.