That makes you the champ of dumb and harmless posts. Thanks for playing along…Calling me something I’m not is just dumb and a harmless insult.
That makes you the champ of dumb and harmless posts. Thanks for playing along…Calling me something I’m not is just dumb and a harmless insult.
Calling you a Trumpster? I said it because you post so much like our loud and proud Trumpsters like DBM and DANC. I also apologized if you don’t identify as a Trumpster.That makes you the champ of dumb and harmless posts. Thanks for playing along…
I knew it, I posted about it and and I am still tired of congress being a complete shit show. If you are requested, show up, or sleep in the basement.Did you know the Trump administration officials ignored House subpoenas and were subsequently found in contempt by the House? Did you know they weren’t prosecuted? What do you do with these inconvenient facts?
I'm confident that I've criticized Democrats and their policies as much or more than anyone here over the years. Again, I try to do it with honesty, facts and reasonableness. Just because you absolutely love Trump, that doesn't make every single Democrat "bad." Just because Trump deserves no support, I don't even come close to thinking every Republican is "bad." Try ramping down your emotions and ramping up the logic and search for facts.I knew it, I posted about it and and I am still tired of congress being a complete shit show. If you are requested, show up, or sleep in the basement.
I remember when you went on a strong rant, about dem's being allowed their own set of rules... Oh wait.. I don't recall you ever, strongly, repeatedly mentioning "dem's bad" every post, at any time the last 7 years. Not even once, other than milquetoast , oh yea, the dems are kinda bad too, I suppose... But Trump, don't ya know...
So to your question. Once congress has balls and use them totally equally. It's a total shit show.
Term limits
Single issue bills
For every new piece of legislation, they must remove/ retire 2.
Let's go Brandon. toot toot.
I am a bit interested on others opinions of just how staunchly you criticize the Donkeys. I've got $5 that says their opinions are, that you don't criticize them, nearly as strong as you think you do.I'm confident that I've criticized Democrats and their policies as much or more than anyone here over the years. Again, I try to do it with honesty, facts and reasonableness. Just because you absolutely love Trump, that doesn't make every single Democrat "bad." Just because Trump deserves no support, I don't even come close to thinking every Republican is "bad." Try ramping down your emotions and ramping up the logic and search for facts.
You never have been able to understand me because you can’t get past the idea that Republicans must support Trump. Ask Goat, Zeke, DrHoops, or any lib poster here about how much we’ve disagreed over the years and I guarantee that although I despised Trump, no one criticized HRC more over the years and even while running against Trump. Especially about the email scandal.I am a bit interested on others opinions of just how staunchly you criticize the Donkeys. I've got $5 that says their opinions are, that you don't criticize them, nearly as strong as you think you do.
I suspect we will hear their opinion shortly.
I'd put another $5 in, that no one here actually is 100% confident, that they know what your true and honest stances are. WHICH, that is fine, once we admit it.
Um, I've been here since 2010. Now ask them whom you have called out more, Hill or Donnie.You never have been able to understand me because you can’t get past the idea that Republicans must support Trump. Ask Goat, Zeke, DrHoops, or any lib poster here about how much we’ve disagreed over the years and I guarantee that although I despised Trump, no one criticized HRC more over the years and even while running against Trump. Especially about the email scandal.
Well then you’ve not paid attention.Um, I've been here since 2010. Now ask them whom you have called out more, Hill or Donnie.
And as I've said dozens of times, I don't have to understand you. You can do what ever you want. But damn it sure would be easier to understand a consistent line.
Example ( I guess) I think we all "understand" Brad Stevens, with not much of a question. It's what make you more interesting. Just when I think I've got it figured out, bam. nope. .. Again, no big deal other than you intrigue me, due to the uncertainty. NOT A SMEAR on you. (of course I do chuckle at the toot toot thing.. )
There are going to be a lot more courts cases. This will feed down through state legislatures. Executive branch agencies will be scared to take any actions that could be challenged in court. Congressional lobbyists will have increased expense accounts.
It's actually limiting the power of the executive vs. the judiciary. Legislative power has not changed with this decision, although legislative "responsibility" arguably has.Is that a good or bad thing? I’m not smart enough to follow the legal intellectuals ITT, but one of the key changes seems to be limiting power of the Executive branch in favor of the Legislature.
At face value, that isn’t a bad thing, particularly in the wake of EO excessive use and who we have running for President for the next term, neither of which I trust.
That being said, I similarly look out at Congress and struggle to see how that pack of losers is going to be passing proper, rational and pragmatic legislation.
It's actually limiting the power of the executive vs. the judiciary. Legislative power has not changed with this decision, although legislative "responsibility" arguably has.
I think that's what the majority hopes for, pragmatically.Good point. I'm not sure if that's any better either, though I assume the average judge is more intelligent than the average House member and potentially all of Congress.
I was (perhaps wrongly) interpreting the majority views that Congress should make a more comprehensive approach towards laws so the ambiguity or holes aren't filled in by agencies.
It's actually limiting the power of the executive vs. the judiciary. Legislative power has not changed with this decision, although legislative "responsibility" arguably has.
Where do you think the pendulum will swing when it comes to the “insatiable quest for power”? If there is no one minding the store, will the robbers barons simply dump the chemicals in the river rather than responsibly dispose of them? Do you think those who have a monetary gain will govern themselves accordingly?What kind of “expert” does it take to make the fishing industry pay for government cops when the statute doesn’t mention that?
The abuses allowed by the Chevron deferral was not about experts doing their statutory jobs, it was about the inherent problem with government, the insatiable quest for power and authority.
The fallacy here is the implied premise that we either have the regulatory regime we have or we have the law of the jungle with no regulations at all.Where do you think the pendulum will swing when it comes to the “insatiable quest for power”? If there is no one minding the store, will the robbers barons simply dump the chemicals in the river rather than responsibly dispose of them? Do you think those who have a monetary gain will govern themselves accordingly?
Also, FWIW, we should always approach this question with the understanding that there always have been and always will be people who will act in their own interests without any regard to the environment, other people, society at large.Where do you think the pendulum will swing when it comes to the “insatiable quest for power”? If there is no one minding the store, will the robbers barons simply dump the chemicals in the river rather than responsibly dispose of them? Do you think those who have a monetary gain will govern themselves accordingly?
Which branch is in a better position to alter, test, and fine tune the regulations for optimal outcomes, though, on all these industries and matters? If that's the main concern, the executive is the right branch.The fallacy here is the implied premise that we either have the regulatory regime we have or we have the law of the jungle with no regulations at all.
What should be our goal - with regulations, taxes, trade policies, and everything else - is efficiency that offers us optimal outcomes.
When regulations are discussed, people almost invariably end up getting caught up in talking about “more” or “less.” Little, if any, specificity…much less nuance.
Does our society get a net benefit from any regulations? Yes. Does our society get a net benefit from all regulations? No. And examples abound in both categories.
The debate shouldn’t be a Yes/No debate. The debate should be how this is approached to give us the best array of outcomes.
That said, this isn’t the question that was before the court in Loper Bright.
Eventually, the gravy seals will swoop... (swoop may be a little enthusiastic) in and clear the trash out of the way, reminding those with less than the best intent for the country, of who they actually work for.Where do you think the pendulum will swing when it comes to the “insatiable quest for power”? If there is no one minding the store, will the robbers barons simply dump the chemicals in the river rather than responsibly dispose of them? Do you think those who have a monetary gain will govern themselves accordingly?
Which branch is in a better position to alter, test, and fine tune the regulations for optimal outcomes, though, on all these industries and matters? If that's the main concern, the executive is the right branch.
Congress can't change quickly enough and isn't driven by efficiency concerns. Ever.Probably. But Congress will some work to do here, too - on an ongoing basis.
Easy to discount, considering the source.I am sure you will not like this analysis from yesterday's:
The Supreme Court just lit a match and tossed it into dozens of federal agencies
SEC v. Jarkesy could render much of the federal government unable to function.www.vox.com
That would be a fast track to bankrupt the political (ideologically disadvantaged) industry losers … while perhaps appropriate (to many) for sinners like ‘big tobacco’ … it would be visited upon those who whose sins are defined by being on the wrong side of an ideological contention.Just curious, if an industry needs policed, who should pay? I think pass one law that all industries must cover enforcement of their industry.