- President Donald Trump has an opportunity to make his environmental regulation rollbacks permanent if he places another conservative on the Supreme Court before Inauguration Day, legal experts argue.
- Adding another conservative justice will also greatly diminish Justice John Robert’s role as a swing member in which he occasionally sides with liberal justices, one legal expert at the University of Maryland suggested.
- The president can pave the road for future deregulations with one more justice, Myron Ebell, an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
It was my understanding that the Supreme Courts’ only job was to determine if the laws and regulations passed by Congress or executive order by the President were constitutional and everything else was to be done by the state courts.
Well, they have never done that in my lifetime and became a rubber stamp for FDR not because they thought what he was doing was constitutional but because he threatened to stack the court if they didn’t.
So much for the honor and separation of the court.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a permit for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a proposed natural gas pipeline which would be built under the Appalachian Trail, would be reinstated.
In a 7 to 2 decision, the justices tossed out a decision from a lower court and ruled that the U.S. Forest Service can grant rights-of-way for developers in land within national forests, the Associated Press reported. Energy companies and the Trump administration supported reinstating the permit, while environmental groups opposed it.
Nearly every American knows the phrase “separation of church and state.” Do you know where it’s from? Here’s a hint: it’s not in the Constitution. John Eastman, professor of law at Chapman University, explains how and why this famous phrase has played such an outsized role in American life and law.
Please watch the VIDEO
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued a fiery defense of free speech Monday morning as the high court announced it would not hear an appeal from the conservative magazine National Review in a defamation case against it by liberal climate science professor Michael Mann.
Mann’s case against the magazine stems from his creation of the infamous “hockey stick graph” and a central role in the “Climategate” scandal — in which his employer, Penn State University, eventually cleared him of wrongdoing.
National Review published an op-ed that called his graph — which displays earth’s temperature increasing seemingly exponentially beginning right around the industrial revolution — “deceptive” and “fraudulent” over its substitution of certain types of data for thermometer readings for time periods before thermometers were available. The magazine called for an investigation into Mann and doubled down on its stance in subsequent writings.
Brought to You by www.SEPP.org, The Science and Environmental Policy Project
By Ken Haapala, President
Quote of the Week: “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.” – Leo Tolstoy [William Readdy]
Why I Don’t “believe” In …: Judith Curry brought up a thoughtful essay by Robert Tracinski illustrating how politicians and the like try to persuade others to accept their views by manipulating meaningful terms to the point of rendering the terms meaningless. Currently it is fashionable to invoke the term “science” to justify one’s political policies and beliefs.
By William Federer – Re-Blogged From Freedom Outpost
Justice William Orville Douglas served the longest term on the bench in the Supreme Court’s history — 36 years, until his death JANUARY 19, 1980.
He was one of the eight Supreme Court Justices nominated by Franklin D. Roosevelt.
He previously taught law at Columbia Law School and Yale Law School, and served on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
By JP Cortez – Re-Blogged From Gold Eagle
Americans no longer carry gold and silver money in our pockets and purses as our grandparents did. But we still carry the history, legacy, and spirit of those gold and silver coins in our language.
“Sound money” embodies a clear message recognized for centuries around the world. It describes the musical, metallic ring of a gold, silver, or copper coin dropped on any hard surface of glass, stone, wood, or metal.
Sound money literally refers to real wealth, with a natural, unmistakable signature of authenticity, as opposed to the paper, plastic, and electronic debt instruments used almost exclusively today.
Re-Blogged From Hillsdale College
HUGH HEWITT: Morning glory, America, from the ReliefFactor.com West Coast studio where dawn is breaking over a smoky sky and Lake Elsinore is surrounded and battling to save its homes, its parks, and its wildlife. Here on the Hillsdale Dialogues, we look at the big issues and the big things that have mattered over the course of the week, the month, the year, the century, the millennium, indeed all of known human history with one or the other from Hillsdale College. All things Hillsdale at hillsdale.edu.
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Brought to You by www.SEPP.org
Infinite Rise? For the past several weeks TWTW has discussed recent studies and reports claiming accelerating sea level rise. A questionable example included a report from NOAA and was cited by the state of Rhode Island in its litigation against oil companies – “The State of Narraganset Bay and Its Watershed 2017.” In the Technical Summary, Figures 1 & 2 (pp. 76 & 77) show the decades-long sea level trends in Newport and Providence, RI, of 2.78 +/- 0.16 mm per year (1.1 inches per decade) and 2.25 +/- 0.25 mm per year (0.9 inches per decade), respectively. These come from the established NOAA publication “Tides and Currents.” (Newport is at the mouth and Providence at the top of Narraganset Bay) Then, Figure 3 (p. 78) shows NOAA projections of a rise of up to 11 feet in Newport by the end of the century (extreme case)! How did a rise of 10 inches per century, with an error of about 10%, turn in to rise of 11 feet by the end of the century (280 mm per century to 3352 mm per century)? This increase in rate of rise is more than 10 times that being measured.
By Aaron Credeur – Re-Blogged From Independent Journal Review
In a ruling that deals a devastating blow to worker unions across the country, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Wednesday that state government employees who choose not to become union members cannot be forced to pay union dues.
By Associated Press – Re-Blogged From Newsmax
America’s union leaders are about to find out if they were right to fiercely oppose Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court as a pivotal, potentially devastating vote against organized labor.
The newest justice holds the deciding vote in a case to be argued Feb. 26 that could affect the financial viability of unions that are major supporters of Democratic candidates and causes. The unions represent more than 5 million government workers in 24 states and the District of Columbia who could be affected by the outcome. The other eight justices split 4 to 4 when the issue was last at the court in 2016.
[Most Judges, including Supreme Court Justices, are appointed for life – during good behavior. The Justices who have refused to uphold the Constitution in this case are guilty of Bad Behavior, and they should be removed. – Bob]
In refusing to hear a challenge to Texas’ asset forfeiture law, the U.S. Supreme Court is allowing Texas police to keep $201,000 in cash primarily on the basis that the seized cash—the proceeds of a home sale—was being transported on a highway associated with illegal drug trade, despite any proof of illegal activity by the owner. Asset forfeiture laws, which have come under intense scrutiny and criticism in recent years, allow the police to seize property “suspected” of being connected to criminal activity without having to prove the owner of the property is guilty of a criminal offense.
Lisa Leonard, the owner of the $201,000, had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to compel Texas to return her money, given that she was innocent of any crime. In a written opinion that denounced the profit incentives that drive asset forfeiture schemes, Justice Clarence Thomas concluded, “This system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses.”
The Week That Was: October 29, 2016 – Brought to You by www.SEPP.org
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Constitutional Tug-of-War: During the turmoil following the Revolutionary War, which ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783, it became evident to many of the political leaders that the central government under the Articles of Confederation was not working as hoped. A stronger central government was needed. In a 1787 prolonged meeting, later called the Constitutional Convention, many leaders participated to form a new charter to make a more effective central government. Of the many participating, one of the most important was James Madison, a scholar of history and political theorist. During the process from the drafting of the Constitution in May 1787, to its adoption in September, and its implementation in 1789, many ideas emerged. During the period of ratification, Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton wrote the very influential essays now called the Federalist Papers. Others, opposing ratification of the Constitution, wrote essays now collected and called the Anti-Federalist Papers. Probably, the now best-known of the anti-Federalists was Patrick Henry. These skeptics gave rise to the Bill of Rights, which articulate specific human rights upon which the central government cannot infringe. Madison did not perceive a need for the Bill of Rights because he believed human rights are many, broad, and well-established and that the proposed Constitution clearly restricted the powers of the Federal government so that it could not interfere with those rights.
By Clint Siegner – Re-Blogged From https://www.moneymetals.com
It just doesn’t matter much whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump wins the election, at least in terms of gold and silver market fundamentals. That said, the contest itself is signaling something important precious metals investors should be watching intently.
This campaign is dragging whatever prestige is still associated with the Office of President into the mud. Few voters on either side bother to spend much time arguing the greatness of their candidate. When both Trump and Clinton carry more baggage than American Airlines, it’s easier to focus on their opponent’s shortcomings.
The victor in this epically polarized contest will garner only tepid support from a minority of Americans. He or she will be despised by most everyone else.
Washington DC is having a very bad decade. This year’s election is just part of a larger pattern that has big ramifications for the dollar and therefore precious metals; the devolution of confidence in our federal institutions.
By Roger Pilon – Re-Blogged From The Cato Institute
The 2000 presidential election was widely understood to be a battle for the courts. When George W. Bush finally won, following the Supreme Court’s split decision in Bush v. Gore, many Democratic activists simply dug in their heels, vowing to frustrate Bush’s efforts to fill vacancies on the federal courts. After Democrats took control of the Senate in May of 2001, they began calling explicitly for ideological litmus tests for judicial nominees. And they started a confirmation stall, especially for circuit court nominees, that continues to this day. Thus, 8 of Bush’s first 11 circuit court nominees went for over a year without even a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and most have still not come before the committee.
By Paul Driessen – Re-Blogged From http://www.CFACT.org
No warming in 18 years, no category 3-5 hurricane hitting the USA in ten years, seas rising at barely six inches a century: computer models and hysteria are consistently contradicted by Real World experiences.
So how do White House, EPA, UN, EU, Big Green, Big Wind, liberal media, and even Google, GE and Defense Department officials justify their fixation on climate change as the greatest crisis facing humanity? How do they excuse saying government must control our energy system, our economy and nearly every aspect of our lives – deciding which jobs will be protected and which ones destroyed, even who will live and who will die – in the name of saving the planet? What drives their intense ideology?
The Week That Was: July 25, 2015 – Brought to You by www.SEPP.org
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Limiting Power of the EPA? On his web site, 35-plus year veteran of the EPA Alan Carlin and author of Environmentalism Gone Mad, briefly describes how today’s EPA went from an organization representing the best interests of the American public to one representing a small segment of it, the extreme radical environmental movement. The EPA is a creature of President Nixon’s political thanking, who cobbled together a government entity without need for legislative review and oversight. As such, the administrator of the EPA answers only to the President, the executive branch of government; and not to Congress, the legislative branch. This arrangement is contrary to principles behind the Constitution, which was designed to provide a separation of powers, where the ambitions of one branch were counter-balanced by the ambitions of another.
By Daren Bakst – Re-Blogged From http://www.Heritage.org
In April 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers published a proposed rule—“Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ Under the Clean Water Act”—that defines what waters are covered under the Clean Water Act (CWA). This rule, often referred to as the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule, could cover almost any type of water, giving the two agencies far greater power than authorized under the CWA. The proposed rule is complicated and vague, with little clarity coming from the agencies. There are four key points that should be known about the proposed rule: (1) it is extremely broad; (2) it is an attack on property rights; (3) it exceeds the broadest interpretation of Supreme Court precedent on CWA jurisdiction; and (4) it was developed through a flawed process. Unless Congress acts, this proposed power grab could soon become a reality—the two agencies recently sent their final rule to the Office of Management and Budget for its approval. Congress should require that the agencies withdraw the rule, and then Congress must define what is meant by “waters of the United States.”
By Peter Van Doren – Re-Blogged From http://www.downsizinggovernment.org
Large-scale federal intervention into America’s energy markets began in the 1930s and continued through the 1970s. A series of major laws and executive actions sought to control energy prices, regulate electric and gas utilities, and limit imports. Competition was stifled and domestic investment was suppressed.
By the 1970s, the Middle East oil embargoes and other upheavals began making the failure of federal energy interventions clear to policymakers. They reversed course, and took major deregulatory steps in the 1970s and 1980s to free up energy markets, to the ultimate benefit of consumers and the overall economy.
The uncompensated taking of up to half a grower’s raisin crop ought not stand!
A scheme cooked up by bureaucrats at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 66 years ago that restricts raisin growers’ freedom to farm in favor of a government-sponsored cartel is at the center of a dispute soon to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Re-Blogged From http://www.CFACT.org – By Larry Bell
Two high court rulings this year may potentially alter the paths of Obamacare and EPA regulatory authority in significant ways.
Early this year, most likely in March, the court will hear arguments on whether or not the Obama Administration has legal authority to grant tax subsidies through health insurance exchanges established by the federal government….
The Supreme Court refused to hear a case where a jury found three men guilty of a minor charge and innocent on a major charge. The judge in the case over-ruled the jury and sentenced the three based on his finding of guilt to the major charge. The Supreme Court messed up – big time.
Read this Oct 14 Blog Post