Posted on 06/26/2022 3:33:18 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
His Tweet makes it sound like he wants to reverse those decisions. Doubtful that it's what he meant but it's what he said that makes the news. Regardless, he should have kept his hands off the keyboard.
The constitution was a brilliant diversion, a delaying tactic. Now normalcy will return. Back to nature.
“Two steps forward, one step back.”
Cornyn knows how the game is played. He just knee-capped part of the 2nd Amendment, so now he’s looking for another issue to distract from his treachery. Texans, this guy is almost as slippery as Lindsay Graham.
Don’t be fooled.
Cornyn’s tweet is being taken in the wrong way. He said “now do” when he should have written “now comment on”.
His use of words is just stupid on this topic.
They posted the Tweet from Cornyn's account. As to who the idiot in this picture is it's open to question.
California has a carbon tax
https://www.nrdc.org/media/2007/070402
Supreme Court: Heat-Trapping Carbon Dioxide is Pollution
Rules EPA Has Power to Curb Global Warming Emissions, Repudiates White House Do-Nothing Policy
April 02, 2007
WASHINGTON (April 2, 2007) – After a four-year court battle, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled today 5-4 that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act, and that the U.S. government already has authority to start curbing them.
The Supreme Court’s decision, in Massachusetts v. EPA, repudiates the Bush administration’s do-nothing policy on global warming. For years, the administration has denied carbon dioxide is an air pollutant that EPA can control under the Clean Air Act.
“Today the nation’s highest court has set the White House straight. Carbon dioxide is an air pollutant, and the Clean Air Act gives EPA the power to start cutting the pollution from new vehicles that is wreaking havoc with our climate,” said David Doniger, NRDC’s attorney in the case.
What about Alien vs Predator? Throw that out (especially part 2)
How are you coming up with that? He was pointing out ANOTHER classic example of when the court was right to reverse its’ precedent.
enjoy your retirement, john
Texas and SC just both got fooled again in 2020.
Both of those chuckleheads have been keeping the border open and trying for amnesty for their entire Senate careers.
They are the epitome of Bush League Republicans.
“John Cornholed”..
I would guess you have zero understanding of what the senator was ever talking about do you.
Yep. Look for The GOP to continue to sabotage the party on purpose.
They did Plessy v. Ferguson. His Tweet makes it sound like the court should review that decision again. Why, if not to reverse it?
Did you read Obama’s tweet about 50 years of precedent? I guess you didn’t.
That’s what the dumbass Cornyn was replying to. Cornyn is 100% right on this one, for a change.
How about throwing out every law passed about gun control, “shall not be infriged “ = pass no law.
I’m a convicted felon, I did something stupid, dumb. You name it, it’s something I’m deeply ashamed of. But for 40 years I’ve obeyed the law, if I could buy a gun tomorrow legally do you think I would go right out away and commit some type of robbery, murder ect ? But if I didn’t obey the laws I could have gotten a gun anytime I wanted.
Laws are to keep guns away from the general population
So called gun laws are the camels nose under the tent for law abiding citizens.
Keep the peace, love your family and God.
Please revisit Wickard v. Filburn!
That’s the one where the US Government was controlling wheat production, and wouldn’t let a farmer grow wheat for his own feedstock use. It was found that the government could indeed force him to stop, using the tortured logic that it could act under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, because him supplying his own needs instead of buying higher priced grain on the market was interfering the interstate market in wheat. Big mistake! Vast expansion of Federal power.
A more erudite summary from the web:
“Wickard v. Filburn was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States case that was decided in 1942. This case pertained to the constitutional question of whether the United States Government had the authority to A) regulate production of agricultural goods if those goods were intended for personal consumption and B) whether the Federal Government had the authority to regulate trivial intrastate economic activities even if the goods and/or services were not intended for interstate commerce. The case came to fruition when Roscoe Filburn grew more agricultural goods on his farm than the government allowed. After suing the government, Filburn won the case after proving that the fine was a deprivation of his property without due process of law. Afterwards, Secretary of Agriculture Claude Wickard appealed the decision, and eventually had the lower court’s decision overturned on the grounds the government did, in fact, have the authority to regulate agriculture for personal use as well as trivial intrastate commerce, based on the idea that it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.”
That’s one interpretation. The other would be that he is suggesting that if it was wrong to overturn Roe with Dobbs, then is it also wrong to overturn Plessy with Brown?
Some more explanation would be in order.
I don’t do Twitter. Are you limited to 140 characters or some such?
I suggest that the reread Justice Thomas' opinions in NYS Rifle & Pistol and Dobbs. Thomas correctly opines that the 5th/14th Due Process Clause only requires procedural due process. Miranda goes to the heart of procedural due process -- it is a procedural safeguard that protects a person from being a witness against himself and from being deprived of liberty without due process of law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.