4
HelloDolly 4 points ago +4 / -0

Agree. I was thinking it was a no, but this is too much of a coincidence not to be a confirm.

3
HelloDolly 3 points ago +3 / -0

Ditto the great post comments. You should make this it's own Post and call it "It's Going to Be Biblical" or something. I would love to save it and send it around.

1
HelloDolly 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thanks for this. I was trying to figure out if it was the same speech but my computer kept buffering. Annoying.

5
HelloDolly 5 points ago +5 / -0

From some crazy reason the minivan I had when the kids were little had a radio control in the back seat. What????

5
HelloDolly 5 points ago +5 / -0

Same here. My little sister and I were just talking about this yesterday. I wanted to hang out with my older brother and his friends so I learned how to play running bases, wore Sears Toughskin Jeans, the whole 9 yards.

1
HelloDolly 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thanks I didn't understand why we needed a "real ID". Surprising that cabal Illinois is late to the party. They keep getting extensions.

12
HelloDolly 12 points ago +12 / -0

LOL I'm not the only one pretty happy about SCOTUS "setting us back decades if not centuries." I'm hoping for centuries. Approximately two and one/half would be good.

2
HelloDolly 2 points ago +3 / -1

Abortion isn't unconstitutional. The SCOTUS ruling is just that there is no constitutional right to have one, so state laws restricting abortion are okay. A federal law codifying abortion rights could be upheld and would not be in conflict with the recent decision.

The question would then become would a federal law guaranteeing the right to an abortion would trump a state law restricting abortion. That would be a question of "federal supremacy" under Article VI over state law. In most case federal law will trump state law.

23
HelloDolly 23 points ago +23 / -0

The truth is hard sometimes. I feel very different about my extended family than I did three years ago.

30
HelloDolly 30 points ago +30 / -0

I swear until I saw the hashtag I thought she was one of us.

2
HelloDolly 2 points ago +2 / -0

I wish they had gone much farther. I don't think executive branch rule making is appropriate, period. It's just lawmaking by another name. And per Article II Congress is supposed to exclusively make law, not punt to a bunch of bureaucrats. And but for a little tweaking here and there, is there really that much more law necessary? Don't kill people or steal their shit or molest kids. That gets us 90% there IMO.

4
HelloDolly 4 points ago +4 / -0

They never learn OMG. How many "Mueller Time!"s are they going to have to go through before they get it?

10
HelloDolly 10 points ago +10 / -0

I still remember POTUS talking about the sensitive operation where Milley and others were involved in saving the life of a young woman or something to that effect. Trump said we would find more out about that "soon" but that was years ago. He never mentioned it again.

3
HelloDolly 3 points ago +3 / -0

To elaborate on why it's not just the EPA but all federal agencies:

Article II of the Constitution says that law making is the EXCLUSIVE right and obligation of Congress. This would be a good thing because Congress is supposed to be answerable to the electorate.

Some time ago Congress started passing laws that delegate "rule making" to unelected executive branch bureaucrats. This is where the Deep State came from. A perfect example would be Obamacare. Legislation like Obamacare will have a definitions section, and in most cases "The Secretary" will be defined as whoever is in charge of the three letter agency involved in administering the law. In the case of Obamacare, the "The Secretary" is the secretary of Health and Human Services. Then throughout the law the various sections will read "The Secretary shall promulgate rules" to effectuate whatever over arching goal the law has. Using Obamacare again as an example, you can do a "control F" for the word promulgate and see that the word is used 91 times in the law:

https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ148/PLAW-111publ148.pdf

The very first time the phrase is used in the law you can see that Congress is allowing "The Secretary" of HHS to define what a "dependent" is under the law:

‘‘(b) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations to define the dependents to which coverage shall be made available under subsection (a).

Some people (like me) argue that rule making is just lawmaking by another name, and that it is totally unconstitutional for these three letter agencies to be essentially making the laws that govern our every day lives.

Delegation to the three letter agencies proliferated after the 1984 (ironic, no?) Supreme Court decision in Chevron. Wikipedia's summary of the decision isn't too bad actually:

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers.[1] The decision articulated a doctrine now known as "Chevron deference".[2] The doctrine consists of a two-part test applied by the court, when appropriate, that is highly deferential to government agencies: "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction [emphasis added] of the statute", so long as Congress has not spoken directly to the precise issue at question.

In that case the court held that the EPA could define the word "source" in administering a congressional statute governing the source of pollution.

Chevron has been a disaster and I know for sure that Gorsuch has questioned whether it needs to be overturned. I know people here won't like it but Scalia was a defender of the decision and general proposition that the court's shouldn't interfere with Congress' delegation of rule making, etc. That Gorsuch was Scalia's replacement was a huge problem for the left because they of course love the Deep State. I am sure many wished Scalia dead for decades. Be careful what you wish for LOL.

The ruling in this new EPA case would almost have to address whether Chevron should be overruled.

1
HelloDolly 1 point ago +1 / -0

Came here to say this. There are a number of quotes attibuted to Keanu Reeves that are also unsubstantiated. Also the picture in this post "with Epstein" is not Rachel Chandler. I believe there are a number of substantiated Instagram posts that make reference to the Island though.

5
HelloDolly 5 points ago +5 / -0

Gorsuch really wants to overturn the Chevron decision, which would be huge. The proliferation of the deep state since that ruling by SCOTUS has been ridiculous. Basically says that he courts will not interfere with the deep state's interpretation of how to administer "laws" passed by Congress, when the DS drafts the "rules." Chevron is the reason Pelosi said "we have to pass [Obamacare] to find out what's in it." Since Chevron, legislation passed by Congress typically states that the "Secretary" (of HHS, EPA, etc.) shall promulgate "rules" to implement legislation, which is really just the Congresscritters punting what was supposed to be their exclusive law making responsibility. In the case of Obamacare, for example, delegation of the rule making to the "Secretary" of HHS, Katherine Sebelius, is where the death panels came from.

This is boring stuff compared to some of the drama coming out of DC, but as important as overturning Roe.

view more: Next ›