[Congressman Billybob]

My understanding is that the short version of this will appear in Sunday's Washington Examiner, and already is out their door, electronically. I held this off a week, so it wouldn't step on their toes. There was blood on the floor over the requirement that I cut this down to less than 500 words. LOL.

John / Billybob

[honolulugal]

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

FReepmail me to get on or off

New!!: Dr. John Ray’s
GREENIE WATCH

Please ping me if you find one I’ve missed.
OKSooner and I are doing the POGW
ping list while xcamel is on vacation.

---

[concentric circles]

Excellent summary and one good example of the many reasons for going to the voting booth and electing people who will make responsible decisions when appointing judges.

[Robert A Cook PE]

I notice that the “usual” suspects have voted their RULE (or their political viewpoint) again, regardless of what the US constitution or US laws require.

Now, a question: If the SC inJustices vote their politics (international socialism for example), rather than the law, but the USSC has declared itself the “Holy Grail” of the US, how do you change it?

Asked a different way, have Clinton’s appointees EVER voted AGAINST more government, more socialism, more dominance of the liberal society over American values? Has either EVER voted according to the “law” rather than liberal political views?

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

“the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant”

---

Does this mean that Coke, Pepsi and Uncle Sam’s FDA are going to be named co-defendants in future class action suits for selling poisoned soft drinks to Americans for a century?

Good grief.

[Jacquerie]

Once again, five dweebs in blackrobes supersede Congress and make another law.

Too bad impeachment, firing from a job for incompetence is so little used. Scotus justices should be wary of holding their jobs like anyone else.

[popdonnelly]

Clinton and lying are synonymous.

[PGalt]

Great post. Thanks. FReeper comments BUMP!

[kvanbrunt2]

Chief Justice Robert’s Dissent, joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, states early on, “I would reject these challenges as nonjusticiable. Such a conclusion involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem.... [R]edress of grievances of the sort at issue here is the function of Congress and the Chief Executive.”

“nonjusticiable” wow. The supreme court includes nonjusticiable as part of the dissenting opinion. When will they be declaring 99% of what they hear nonjusticiable. That would be a court to listen to.
thx to Alito for bucking up the dissent.

[kvanbrunt2]

Chief Justice Robert’s Dissent, joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, states early on, “I would reject these challenges as nonjusticiable. Such a conclusion involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem.... [R]edress of grievances of the sort at issue here is the function of Congress and the Chief Executive.”

“nonjusticiable” wow. The supreme court includes nonjusticiable as part of the dissenting opinion. When will they be declaring 99% of what they hear nonjusticiable. That would be a court to listen to.
thx to Alito for bucking up the dissent.

[doug from upland]

Another very well-reasoned piece.

Regarding global warming, I believe that there is evidence we are getting warmer. That has happened many times in the billions of years of our planet’s existence. I’m pretty sure automobiles were not on the road much before 1900. That having been said, should we try to do things to lessen man’s impact? Yes, we should. Should we go so overboard that we do more damage by destroying ours and the world’s economy? No, we shouldn’t.

I am very much for the development of alternative forms of energy. That is a good thing. It is especially critical to our national security.