A Good Day For USA

[boutons_deux]

Judge kills MI black voter suppression law that required photo ID, says many more will vote than there will be of the Repug-LIE of fraudulent voting.

and EPA can regulate for health of people and environment (aka PROTECTION) without considering the CORPORATE costs.

============

And this nasty, senile, political asshole dissents POLITICALLY (pro-business) against his own LEGAL opinion. :lol

Justice Scalia Makes Epic Blunder In Supreme Court Opinion

It's not often that a Supreme Court justice makes a factual blunder in a formal opinion.

Legal experts say Justice Antonin Scalia erred in his dissent (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1182_bqm1.pdf) in the 6-2 decision Tuesday to uphold (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/epa-victory-supreme-court) the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate coal pollution that moves across state lines. The Reagan-appointed jurist argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with a unanimous 2001 ruling (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1257.ZS.html) which he mistakenly said shot down EPA efforts to consider costs when setting regulations.

"This is not the first time EPA has sought to convert the Clean Air Act into a mandate for cost-effective regulation. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457 (2001), confronted EPA's contention that it could consider costs in setting [National Ambient Air Quality Standards]," Scalia wrote in his dissent, which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. :lol

The problem: the EPA's position in the 2001 case was exactly the opposite. The agency was defending its refusal to consider cost as a counter-weight to health benefits when setting certain air quality standards. It was the trucking industry that wanted the EPA to factor in cost. The 9-0 ruling sided with the EPA. The author of the ruling that Scalia mischaracterized? Scalia himself.

The conservative justice's error was noted by University of California-Berkley law professor Dan Farber, who called it "embarrassing" and a "cringeworthy blunder."
"Scalia’s dissent also contains a hugely embarrassing mistake. He refers to the Court’s earlier decision in American Trucking as involving an effort by EPA to smuggle cost considerations into the statute. But that’s exactly backwards: it was industry that argued for cost considerations and EPA that resisted," Farber wrote on the environmental law and policy blog Legal Planet (http://legal-planet.org/contributor/danfarber/).

"This gaffe is doubly embarrassing because Scalia wrote the opinion in the case, so he should surely remember which side won! Either some law clerk made the mistake and Scalia failed to read his own dissent carefully enough, or he simply forgot the basics of the earlier case and his clerks failed to correct him. Either way, it's a cringeworthy blunder."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/antonin-scalia-error-supreme-court-dissent-epa?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

:lol

Repug/corporate/VRWC political hacks on SCOTUS. The quality! The respect for law! :lol

Now, EPA must rule that coal ash is a toxic substance and make the owners clean every bit of it up.

And overturn dickhead war criminal Cheney and include fracking in the Clean Water Act.

[boutons_deux]

Scott Walker, ALEC and RNC Lies Unmasked In Court Ruling Tossing Wisconsin's Tough New Voter ID Law

The political fraud of policing the polls to prevent likely Democratic voters from casting ballots was unmasked by a federal judge in Wisconsin on Tuesday, who struck down that state’s tougher new voter ID law in one of the most forceful federal court rulings of 2014 upholding voting rights.

Federal Judge Lynn Adelman found that Wisconsin’s tougher voter ID law, a pet project of Republican Gov. Scott Walker and his right-wing legislative allies, was not only an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote. It also violated Section 2 of the federal 1965 Voting Rights Act based on the its "disproportionate racial impact and discriminatory result" of depriving "the right of Black and Latino citizens to vote on account of race or color."

Wisconsin Republicans, led by Gov. Scott Walker—a 2016 presidential aspirant—said they would appeal. But they will face a very high legal bar to overturn Adelman’s ruling, which was unflinching in its defense of all voters. It's also unlikely an appeal would be resolved before 2014's elections, meaning the law would not be in effect for November's vote


http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/scott-walker-alec-and-rnc-lies-unmasked-court-ruling-tossing-wisconsins-tough?akid=11763.187590.rFMlqN&rd=1&src=newsletter987501&t=15

[Winehole23]

Concern over voter impersonation fraud is bullshit, statistically insigificant. Concern over absentee voting is another thing entirely.

[Infinite_limit]

I need an ID to walk into a Bar but not to vote? Where is the logic in that

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If anyone wants a link to the story not of boutons disgustingly partisan sites I offer:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/29/us-usa-voter-wisconsin-idUSBREA3S10220140429

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I need an ID to walk into a Bar but not to vote? Where is the logic in that

Your 'logic' is regurgitating a meme. You think it's 'logic' to compare the right to vote with drinking ordinances?

1) Underage drinking is a well documented problem
2) The right to vote is an inalienable right granted by the US constitution
3) What you are comparing it to is a vice law

[boutons_deux]

Even as the right wing SCOTUS says the EPA has the power to regulate, US corporations finance and guide their proxy ALEC to bring the EPA down

http://my.firedoglake.com/cgibson/files/2014/05/New-ALEC-logo.jpg

Barack Obama's emissions plan comes under new line of attack

The central pillar of Barack Obama's climate change agenda has come under a new line of co-ordinated attack from influential lobbying networks involving Republican politicians and big business.

The Guardian has learned that the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec) (http://www.alec.org/), a free market group of state legislators funded in part by coal and oil companies such as Peabody Energy and Koch Industries, launched a much broader style of campaigning in 2014 to block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jun/25/climate-change-carbon-emissions-president-obama-epa).

Documents obtained by the Guardian offer a rare glimpse into the inner workings of Alec as the organisation tried to drum up opposition from coal, oil and electricity industry groups and state officials.

The documents showed Alec adopting a new tactic of encouraging state attorney generals to bring lawsuits against the new EPA regulations – and so sink the emissions controls before they come into effect. Alec also encouraged legislators to lobby attorney generals and governors in other states on the EPA rules, the documents showed.

Meanwhile, ALEC legislators introduced about a dozen anti-EPA bills in states including Arizona, Florida, Ohio and Virginia.

The current campaign emerged on the sidelines of Alec's annual meeting in Washington DC last December when the energy, environment and agriculture taskforce met behind closed doors to discuss how to mobilise state attorney generals, pro-industry groups and power companies to block the EPA.

The strategy was a departure for Alec, which has a reputation for crafting and promoting pro-industry legislation in the states, but has not generally been involved in broader campaigning.

Alec followed up on the roundtable by hosting a briefing from Nebraska's attorney general, Jon Bruning, author of a legal brief challenging the EPA's authority to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Bruning, who is also running for governor of Nebraska, has led opposition from attorney generals to the EPA regulations – 17 of whom signed on to his brief.

In the conference call, Alec members discussed reaching out to attorney generals and other officials to consolidate opposition to the EPA regulations.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/02/barack-obamas-emissions-plan-comes-under-new-line-of-attack?utm_content=buffera1df0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[pgardn]

I need an ID to walk into a Bar but not to vote? Where is the logic in that

The idea in our democracy is to make voting as easy as possible so that EVERY QUALIFIED person has a chance to do so. They key idea is make it readily available to all our qualified citizens. Some groups don't like this. They think you need to pass a test in which you have memorized the constitution, qualify via an intelligence score, have the right color skin.

So some groups want voting stations to become intimidating places which is exactly the opposite idea. Voting is not just for the privileged few who know enough to understand how to make these places seem like they are off limits to the ill-informed, uneducated, and poor.

And as Winehole stated, fraud is minimal. There is one party that attempts to portray fraud as a massive problem IMO.

[Infinite_limit]

The idea in our democracy is to make voting as easy as possible so that EVERY QUALIFIED person has a chance to do so. They key idea is make it readily available to all our qualified citizens. Some groups don't like this. They think you need to pass a test in which you have memorized the constitution, qualify via an intelligence score, have the right color skin.

So some groups want voting stations to become intimidating places which is exactly the opposite idea. Voting is not just for the privileged few who know enough to understand how to make these places seem like they are off limits to the ill-informed, uneducated, and poor.

And as Winehole stated, fraud is minimal. There is one party that attempts to portray fraud as a massive problem IMO.
What does any of this have to do with ID?

You can't have a job or drive a car without ID. You want these sort of low lifes to vote? How can you defend that and honestly state you want the best for America

[pgardn]

What does any of this have to do with ID?

You can't have a job or drive a car without ID. You want these sort of low lifes to vote? How can you defend that and honestly state you want the best for America

Voting is a right guaranteed.

Driving, drinking, having sex with trees, having a job are NOT.
What do you not get with your silly comparisons?

So I went a step further with your nonsense...

[Infinite_limit]

Voting is a right guaranteed.

Driving, drinking, having sex with trees, having a job are NOT.
What do you not get with your silly comparisons?

So I went a step further with your nonsense...
How long til pets and other animals are voting?

People unwilling to contribute to society shouldn't be dictating it's political path. Blatant pandering to low lifes has and will continue to occur.

[TSA]

I am not for or against voter ID laws but for those who oppose them I ask why? An ID card is easy to obtain, why is it considered to be so oppressive?

[Infinite_limit]

I am not for or against voter ID laws but for those who oppose them I ask why? An ID card is easy to obtain, why is it considered to be so oppressive?
I assume it's slippery slope fear

I don't get it either.

[baseline bum]

What does any of this have to do with ID?

You can't have a job or drive a car without ID. You want these sort of low lifes to vote? How can you defend that and honestly state you want the best for America

And elderly people who ride the bus? It's a poll tax on them when they have no need for a driver's license.

[Infinite_limit]

And elderly people who ride the bus? It's a poll tax on them when they have no need for a driver's license.
State Identification card. Every single American should possess a form of ID whether it's drivers license, state ID or passport.

[TSA]

And elderly people who ride the bus? It's a poll tax on them when they have no need for a driver's license.
Why not have the government mail out a voter ID card to everyone of age for free?

[baseline bum]

Why not have the government mail out a voter ID card to everyone of age for free?

Would defeat the purpose of the Voter ID laws.

[pgardn]

State Identification card. Every single American should possess a form of ID whether it's drivers license, state ID or passport.

Why are you adding an extra layer of government for a problem that does not exist?
You are a democrat I bet...

[pgardn]

How long til pets and other animals are voting?

People unwilling to contribute to society shouldn't be dictating it's political path. Blatant pandering to low lifes has and will continue to occur.

Yes.

So the dregs that are voting without some card are close to animals, we get that...
I bet they are rodential, just gnawing away at mercun values.

And the fact you are posting nonsense on a Spurs website makes ME decide you are doing nothing to contribute to society. I get to judge. So get the fuck to work. NOW!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What does any of this have to do with ID?

You can't have a job or drive a car without ID. You want these sort of low lifes to vote? How can you defend that and honestly state you want the best for America

Cowardly avoids my points. It is noted.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

State Identification card. Every single American should possess a form of ID whether it's drivers license, state ID or passport.

So everyone need to have their papers on them at all times or risk punishment?

[TSA]

Would defeat the purpose of the Voter ID laws.

It would shut the republicans up since everyone would have an ID now and would shut the democrats up because everyone gets one for free. Do both sides oppose such a seemingly simple idea?

[TSA]

So everyone need to have their papers on them at all times or risk punishment?

I believe he means just for the purpose of voting so no, everyone would not need there papers on them at all times.

[pgardn]

It would shut the republicans up since everyone would have an ID now and would shut the democrats up because everyone gets one for free. Do both sides oppose such a seemingly simple idea?

Just another layer of bureaucracy for fraud that basically does not exist.
You pay for it.

[TSA]

Just another layer of bureaucracy for fraud that basically does not exist.
You pay for it.
That's my point though. If the fraud basically does not exist just issue the free voting ID cards and shut the republicans up.

[pgardn]

That's my point though. If the fraud basically does not exist just issue the free voting ID cards and shut the republicans up.

Free cards require money to make and then process, for a problem that basically does not exist.

We are all worried about choosing the right leaders, so let us reform campaign finance first. If fraud becomes a problem we can issue yet another card.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It would shut the republicans up since everyone would have an ID now and would shut the democrats up because everyone gets one for free. Do both sides oppose such a seemingly simple idea?

He said nothing about specifics concerning the need and your critical thinking skills are demonstrably very poor.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's my point though. If the fraud basically does not exist just issue the free voting ID cards and shut the republicans up.

This is stupid. They need to shut up on the basis they have no position. Your is the mindset of one that repeats himself over and again thinking it will suddenly be true.

[baseline bum]

It would shut the republicans up since everyone would have an ID now and would shut the democrats up because everyone gets one for free. Do both sides oppose such a seemingly simple idea?

Only one side needs to oppose it in state legislatures.

[TSA]

Free cards require money to make and then process, for a problem that basically does not exist.


I have no idea how much it would take to issue said cards but I'm curious to know how much has been spent challenging voter ID laws in courts across the US. Like I said earlier, I don't care one way or the other, it just seems like a simple way to solve it and let both sides focus on some other shit they can't agree on.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have no idea how much it would take to issue said cards but I'm curious to know how much has been spent challenging voter ID laws in courts across the US. Like I said earlier, I don't care one way or the other, it just seems like a simple way to solve it and let both sides focus on some other shit they can't agree on.

Next up: justification for the poll tax. Just give everyone money!

[pgardn]

I have no idea how much it would take to issue said cards but I'm curious to know how much has been spent challenging voter ID laws in courts across the US. Like I said earlier, I don't care one way or the other, it just seems like a simple way to solve it and let both sides focus on some other shit they can't agree on.

There should have been no reason to file law suits on voter ID in the first place.
There was insignificant voter fraud.

[boutons_deux]

Red states spending $10Ms on voter ID and also drug testing welfare recipients, neither of which is a real problem. One is to suppress Dem voters, the other is to implement their ideology of criminalizing the poor. Why isn't the Fed drug-testing the bank mgmts on the welfare program of borrowing at 0%?