Supreme Court Mullahs (5 lawyers) Order National Fatwa on Global Warming

Posted:
in PoliticalOutsider edited January 2014
As expected by those attuned to the five Supreme liberal politican-lawyers in charge of the Surpeme Ruling Council of America a new Fatwa decree has been issued to policy makers on our duty to war on Global Warming.



And as would be expected, the Court five needed a new theological manipulation of the people's laws text to impose their latest higher wisdom over democracy and a free government - still, we should note four voted for the people, and two legally faithful mullahs authored two dissents on behalf of democratic law:



Justice Roberts:



Quote:

...(they) made (the petitioner's) standing seem a lawyer?s game, rather than a fundamental limitation ensuring that courts function as courts and not intrude on the politically accountable branches.



...Petitioners? difficulty in demonstrating causation and redressability is not surprising given the evident mismatch between the source of their alleged injury?catastrophic global warming?and the narrow subjectmatter of the Clean Air Act provision at issue in this suit. The mismatch suggests that petitioners? true goal for this litigation may be more symbolic than anything else. The constitutional role of the courts, however, is to decide concrete cases?not to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982) (?[Standing] tends to assure that the legal questions presented to the court will be resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicialaction?).



Scalia:



Quote:

The Court?s alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.



I, for one, hope the government of, by, and for the people do not resist the mullahs - they have declared and we must obey. Fall to your knees oh ignorant ones, bow and groval in admiration of their wisdom over our elected policy makers and their laws. All hail the legal mullahs altrustic guidence...
«1

Comments

  • northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,459member
    Roberts and Scalia = liberal mullahs. Classic wingnut mentality.



    You crack me up Max.
  • brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Even if there's a good point to be made, you can always count on a conservative to ruin it by bringing up "mullahs" and "fatwas."
  • northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,459member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    Even if there's a good point to be made, you can always count on a conservative to ruin it by bringing up "mullahs" and "fatwas."



    Because, you know, Republicans can always be counted on for "responsible political discourse."
  • addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,667member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Northgate View Post


    Because, you know, Republicans can always be counted on for "responsible political discourse."



    Gee, I know. It's refreshing to get a straight-forward, common sensical laying out of the facts so that we can all make up our own minds, which is the hallmark of conservative discourse.



    Such a pleasant change of pace from the hysterical, hate-filled ranting of the irrational left.
  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Northgate View Post


    Roberts and Scalia = liberal mullahs. Classic wingnut mentality.



    You crack me up Max.



    I am not sure what echo chamber in your mind you are laughing in, but where did I say or imply Robers and Scalia are 'liberal' mullahs???
  • shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    This is really inappropriate.
  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    Even if there's a good point to be made, you can always count on a conservative to ruin it by bringing up "mullahs" and "fatwas."



    For those not easily distracted by accurate characterizations on the state of the American Supreme Council/Court, the good points of Scalia and Roberts can be appreciated as self-evident truth. Most of us were not surprised at the results, regardless of the briefs or the "conventional wisdom" of legal-eagles who followed oral arguments. The court is divided by two factions, with swing Kennedy fairly predictable according to the political issue proffered.



    Shorn of political issues (such as contract law) the court is tied to the law (hence Breyer's and others rational voting record in this area, regardless of the plantiffs)...but when a political issue gets on the docket the liberals postulate all sorts of nonsense to impose their views.



    This case was obviously wrongly decided, but no matter - it imposes policy on democracy.
  • shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post


    For those not easily distracted by accurate characterizations on the state of the American Supreme Council/Court



    Try an inflammatory characterization.
  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post


    Try an inflammatory characterization.



    It bothers you that I call these mountebanks 'mullahs', and their decrees little more than policy fatwas? Apparently you hold them in some esteem, a sentimental attachment I do not share.



    At least half are dubious people having little character, a few so intellectually and morally debased that they ought to be a national embarrassment in the highest Supreme Council in the land (Kennedy in particular).
  • brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Here's what I don't think you understand Max. The people, via congress, passed environmental laws. That's democracy. Now the executive branch, which is required to implement the laws passed by the people, refuses to do so. So the court says "hey, you're supposed to implement the laws passed by the people." That's about as democratic a process as you can get.



    To take the position that His Almighty Unitary Executiveness can do whatever he wants regardless of the law and the people sure is consistent with conservatism, but it's damn inconsistent with democracy.
  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    Here's what I don't think you understand Max. The people, via congress, passed environmental laws. That's democracy. Now the executive branch, which is required to implement the laws passed by the people, refuses to do so. So the court says "hey, you're supposed to implement the laws passed by the people." That's about as democratic a process as you can get.



    To take the position that His Almighty Unitary Executiveness can do whatever he wants regardless of the law and the people sure is consistent with conservatism, but it's damn inconsistent with democracy.



    But these are the issues.



    First, regardless of administration, the first requirement of the law is that the plaintiff have standing; i.e. that they are directly harmed by a lack of application of the law and comply with Article III. Roberts, et. al., I think have clearly shown that the Court erred in even entertaining this case and (amusingly) punned it by referring to one notorious prior case of error in standing called "SCRAP".



    Second, democracy is acting under the color of law. Congress passed a law BUT did not intend to regulate all emissions. It's intentions are easily discovered by historical reference and subsequent Congressional votes on attempts to regulate greenhouse gases. It also gave the EPA the authority to define pollution and pollutants, which it must do within the boundaries of reasonable meanings.



    Democracy, through its laws, require standing AND implementing Congresses expressed intentions (within the plain text).



    Judicial dictatorship requires an appeal to "unplain" theory, manipulation of prior findings, and conformance to the opinion of socially or politically progressive thinkers.



    Naturally the axe-grinding left want to portray this as "more Bush defiance of the law", substituting their continual pot-banging expressions hatred for the man for the legal-moral issues at stake.
  • addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,667member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post


    But these are the issues.



    First, regardless of administration, the first requirement of the law is that the plaintiff have standing; i.e. that they are directly harmed by a lack of application of the law and comply with Article III. Roberts, et. al., I think have clearly shown that the Court erred in even entertaining this case and (amusingly) punned it by referring to one notorious prior case of error in standing called "SCRAP".



    Second, democracy is acting under the color of law. Congress passed a law BUT did not intend to regulate all emissions. It's intentions are easily discovered by historical reference and subsequent Congressional votes on attempts to regulate greenhouse gases. It also gave the EPA the authority to define pollution and pollutants, which it must do within the boundaries of reasonable meanings.



    Democracy, through its laws, require standing AND implementing Congresses expressed intentions (within the plain text).



    Judicial dictatorship requires an appeal to "unplain" theory, manipulation of prior findings, and conformance to the opinion of socially or politically progressive thinkers.



    Naturally the axe-grinding left want to portray this as "more Bush defiance of the law", substituting their continual pot-banging expressions hatred for the man for the legal-moral issues at stake.



    I'm sort of in awe that you can use a phrase like "pot-banging expressions of hatred for the man" hard on the heels of calling Supreme Court judges "mullahs" issuing "fatwas".



    And bonus points for defending your insane extremism by declaring it to be "objectively true".



    Next up: Bush is just like Hitler, and that's not hate driven hyperbole because any fool can see that it's a fact.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,319member
    Confession: I am baffled by this thread, it's original post, and the characterization of Roberts and Scalia as "mullahs."



  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,319member
    Oh look, a link.



    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1



    Now that we've delved through Max's insane post:



    My first reaction is that the decision makes sense. Congress can certainly pass legislation limiting the EPA's power if they wish to. The President can interact with the EPA change it's direction if he wishes to. What is the problem?



    Of course, the article I'm linking to is not clear on the language:



    Quote:

    The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency must consider greenhouse gases as pollutants, in a blow to the White House.



    "Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles," the court ruled.



    I'm fine with #2, not so fine if the decision actually means #1. I agree they should and do have the authority...but what is this about "must?" That would qualify as a *fatwa is my book.



    *EDIT: Let's stop using the term fatwa. Sorry. I'll say "inappropriate mandate" instead.
  • northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,459member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Next up: Bush is just like Hitler, and that's not hate driven hyperbole because any fool can see that it's a fact.



    ZING!
  • addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,667member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post


    It bothers you that I call these mountebanks 'mullahs', and their decrees little more than policy fatwas? Apparently you hold them in some esteem, a sentimental attachment I do not share.



    At least half are dubious people having little character, a few so intellectually and morally debased that they ought to be a national embarrassment in the highest Supreme Council in the land (Kennedy in particular).



    I've noticed that it's much funner to read Max's posts if you imagine them being said by Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons.
  • shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post


    But these are the issues.



    First, regardless of administration, the first requirement of the law is that the plaintiff have standing; i.e. that they are directly harmed by a lack of application of the law and comply with Article III. Roberts, et. al., I think have clearly shown that the Court erred in even entertaining this case and (amusingly) punned it by referring to one notorious prior case of error in standing called "SCRAP".



    Max-- let me try to explain a few things here.



    As a general matter, judges (and opposing lawyers, smartly) unsympathetic to the respondents typically try to get the case thrown out through narrowly applying procedural law questions. One of those procedural law questions is "standing," which is not the "first requirement of the law" as you so elevate it. It's one of many doctrines in our Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that a plaintiff must satisfy to sue in federal court. But like most difficult questions of law, the rules come with a mountain of caselaw with all sorts of tests.



    It makes sense to have hard and fast rules in some areas of law. Sometimes we just don't want to hear a particular kind of case. Other times we have hard and fast rules because we don't want to clog the court system with more claims than it can handle. Other times we do so for administrative efficiency. Those are all good reasons for a hard and fast rule. But in a lot of areas of law we allow more flexibility. We use soup tests and factors tests to weigh the pros and cons of hearing the particular case. This allows more plaintiffs to get to trial and more claims to be heard.



    That's what we're seeing with the relative flexibility of standing doctrine.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post


    Second, democracy is acting under the color of law. Congress passed a law BUT did not intend to regulate all emissions. It's intentions are easily discovered by historical reference and subsequent Congressional votes on attempts to regulate greenhouse gases. It also gave the EPA the authority to define pollution and pollutants, which it must do within the boundaries of reasonable meanings.



    I don't really know the case-- and I suspect you don't either.



    Regardless, congress can easily circumvent the ruling by passing a law exempting greenhouse gas emissions if they want.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post


    Democracy, through its laws, require standing AND implementing Congresses expressed intentions (within the plain text).



    Well, 1) there are a host of procedural law requirements parties have to meet and 2) congressional intent is certainly a consideration but it's often difficult to discern.
  • jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Most. Outrageous. Thread. Title. EVER.
  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Confession: I am baffled by this thread, it's original post, and the characterization of Roberts and Scalia as "mullahs."







    Perhaps I have taken too much for granted, so my apologies. In summary:



    a) I am expressing my distaste for the Supreme Court as a whole...an institution that acts much as Iran's Supreme Council which 'permits' some low level democracy but that, in fact, operates as religious or (if you like) imperial body which has the real power over society. It is not a co-equal branch (as it should be) but has become an oversight branch - just like Iran.



    b) Like the mullahs, the "liberal" majority on the Court are theological mystics - rather than reading the plain text of the law they use a form of the intellectual equivelent of reading chicken entrails...e.g. "living constitutionalism" to go beyond the law to make new law and/or make policy.



    c) Roberts and Scalia are mullahs, but they stick to plain text and the law. They are not mystics, they are honest judges. The whole court has too much power but at least they are honest in their readings.



    To be fair, perhaps I should call the conservative four "judges" and the crazy five "mullahs' - but I think you get the points.



    And finally, the case was wrongly decided.
  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Oh look, a link.



    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1



    Now that we've delved through Max's insane post:



    My first reaction is that the decision makes sense. Congress can certainly pass legislation limiting the EPA's power if they wish to. The President can interact with the EPA change it's direction if he wishes to. What is the problem?



    I'm fine with #2, not so fine if the decision actually means #1. I agree they should and do have the authority...but what is this about "must?" That would qualify as a *fatwa is my book.



    *EDIT: Let's stop using the term fatwa. Sorry. I'll say "inappropriate mandate" instead.



    As I feared, my 'insane post' wrongly assumed general knowledge of this major, breaking story. I will followup with some links but in summary:



    1) Roberts rightly established that the plaintiffs had no standing.

    2) Scalia rightly established that if they actually had standing, the case had little merit.



    Congress established it's intent in the clean air act, both at the time and in follow-up considerations of the control of global warming. The power granted did not include a regulation nor, as implied, a necessity to limit greenhouse gases.



    How is that for reasonable?
Sign In or Register to comment.