SCOTUS 9-0 against EPA - Crying Chuck calls it MAGA Court despite UNANIMOUS ruling

evince said:
However, the court split 5-4 in its analysis of how the federal government should define a water source under the Clean Water Act.

Your link asshole
Click to expand...

There was no dissenting opinion. :dunno: They ruled 9-0 in favor of the Idaho couple.
 
Bigdog said:
You never have an argument. All you do is call me a FAG.

:dunno:
Click to expand...

Call 'em like I see 'em, fag.

Here's a suggestion... if you want to have an argument, stop posting such obvious, easily refutable lies and half truths.

Having differing opinions about something is one thing.

But just making up shit to troll, doesn't rate a serious argument.

So you get called names instead. :dunno:
 
Bigdog said:
Post a quote and a link, please.
Click to expand...

Easily proven. Clearly, the overturning of the EPA authority under the law was only agreed to by a slim majority of the Justices, with even one of the right wing nuts disagreeing to it.

Now can you prove that wetlands were defined in the Constitution?

The court voted unanimously to reverse the Ninth Circuit, but split 5–4 on the rationale. The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, introduced a new test to define wetlands, which reversed five decades of EPA rulemaking and limited the scope of the Clean Water Act's authority to regulate waters of the United States. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the three liberal Justices in agreeing that the CWA did not apply to Sackett property, but argued that the new definition by the majority was incorrect and will have significant effects on regulated waters.[8]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackett_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency_(2023)
 
Nomad said:
That's why I rarely even read his threads.

They're just factually twisted half truths or pure bullshit about 99% of the time.

He and a couple of others here seem to get some kind of perverse pleasure from that kind of trolling.
Click to expand...

The alt right has given up on the truth.
 
Walt said:
Easily proven. Clearly, the overturning of the EPA authority under the law was only agreed to by a slim majority of the Justices, with even one of the right wing nuts disagreeing to it.

Now can you prove that wetlands were defined in the Constitution?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackett_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency_(2023)
Click to expand...

Thanks.

No, I can not find Wetlands in the Constitution. Can you? However the Federal gov't built D.C. on a swamp, so they did set a precedent.

Why did the 4 other justices rule in favor of the Sacketts?
 
Bigdog said:
No, I can not find Wetlands in the Constitution. Can you?
Click to expand...

No, so I guess it is up to Congress to define a body of water. That is Congress, not the Supreme Court.

Bigdog said:
Why did the 4 other justices rule in favor of the Sacketts?
Click to expand...

Because they thought the Sacketts won in this particular case, but that the Supreme Court did not have the right to overturn the Congress' definitions. They agreed with Schumer's complaint about the Supreme Court writing laws without even a slight Constitutional argument for doing so.
 
Walt said:
Dog is being dishonest again. There are two decisions in the case, the individual case decision, and then there is the new wetlands definition decision(the precedent). Clearly Schumer is talking about the new wetlands definition decision. The individual case was decided 9 to 0, but Schumer was not talking about that. The precedence setting new wetlands definition was a 5-4 decision. Just a reminder, there are 6 right wing justices, so it was not even unanimous for the right wing(Kavanaugh dissented).
Click to expand...

BIGDOGSHIT is not an honest person. He lies like a DOG!
 
Walt said:
No, so I guess it is up to Congress to define a body of water. That is Congress, not the Supreme Court.



Because they thought the Sacketts won in this particular case, but that the Supreme Court did not have the right to overturn the Congress' definitions. They agreed with Schumer's complaint about the Supreme Court writing laws without even a slight Constitutional argument for doing so.
Click to expand...

Congress? ... but the EPA was created by Executive Order.

So you don't know why the 4 justices ruled in favor of the Sacketts.
 
Bigdog said:
Congress? ... but the EPA was created by Executive Order.
Click to expand...

The law that was overturned was created by the Congress. Schumer is upset that the Supreme Court has taken away Congress' power without any Constitutional justification.
 
Walt said:
Easily proven. Clearly, the overturning of the EPA authority under the law was only agreed to by a slim majority of the Justices, with even one of the right wing nuts disagreeing to it.
Click to expand...

that is a clear misrepresentation of the facts, walt. you even quoted the part that lays out your misrepresentation.
 
Walt said:
In this case, and in many, many previous cases, he has blatantly lied. I am beginning to question is ideology, when it needs so many lies to support it.
Click to expand...

BIGDOG is beyond help! He let his personal and hateful politics overcome his sanity, integrity, morality, and even common sense.

More-than-likely a loner and a loser! I mean, who would ever want to be with someone like him?

He's ruined for life.

Not to mention that using MLK as an AVATAR is Racist, as he is just Mocking MLK!

He does not share MLK values!

So we are talking about an evil, as well as an insane son-of-a-bitch here!

He is only here to stir up as much HATEFUL SHIT as he can!

Every one of his threads turn into Dumpster Fires- just as everything he does in life!
 
Last edited:
Concart said:
Conservatives are dishonest. That is their default position. They lie when the truth will do. Big Dog is exhibit A. He has nothing interesting to say. Just hate, hate, and more hate.
Click to expand...

says the retard that claims books are being banned

who is more dishonest than shitheads like you?
 
Walt said:
Dog is being dishonest again. There are two decisions in the case, the individual case decision, and then there is the new wetlands definition decision(the precedent). Clearly Schumer is talking about the new wetlands definition decision. The individual case was decided 9 to 0, but Schumer was not talking about that. The precedence setting new wetlands definition was a 5-4 decision. Just a reminder, there are 6 right wing justices, so it was not even unanimous for the right wing(Kavanaugh dissented).
Click to expand...

There is only one decision in the case, Walt. Stop lying and calling differing opinions a scotus decision.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
BIGDOG is beyond help! He let his personal and hateful politics overcome his sanity, integrity, morality, and even common sense.

More-than-likely a loner and a loser! I mean, who would ever want to be with someone like him?

He's ruined for life.

Not to mention that using MLK as an AVATAR is Racist, as he is just Mocking MLK!

He does not share MLK values!

So we are talking about an evil, as well as an insane son-of-a-bitch here!

He is only here to stir up as much HATEFUL SHIT as he can!

Every one of his threads turn into Dumpster Fires- just as everything he does in life!
Click to expand...

Democrats hate Rev. MLK and his "I have a dream speech".

You Orwellian newspeak libs are the opposite of classical liberalism.
 
Nomad said:
Call 'em like I see 'em, fag.

Here's a suggestion... if you want to have an argument, stop posting such obvious, easily refutable lies and half truths.

Having differing opinions about something is one thing.

But just making up shit to troll, doesn't rate a serious argument.

So you get called names instead. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Homophobe mad, the decision was 9-0. No lie.
 
Bigdog said:
Democrats hate Rev. MLK and his "I have a dream speech".

You Orwellian newspeak libs are the opposite of classical liberalism.
Click to expand...

You are very wrong about me friend!

310510.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top