If you refuse to vote for Democrats because they don’t perfectly align with your progressive ideals, this is what you get - potentially decades of work implementing environmental, anticorruption, and social justice rolled back by a court that has been stacked with extreme right wingers to legislate from the bench for unpopular outcomes.
There is one viable party that both implements more progressive policies and names judges that will uphold them - do not throw your vote away.
I realized a long time ago that one of the fundamental flaws in our three tiered government system is that there is no check and balance on the supreme Court.
If i, a not very bright person, can figure out that there is a gaping flaw in a system that is ripe for exploitation, then it makes sense that other people did as well.
What we need is an addendum to the system to put a check on the supreme Court. A path by which should the supreme Court enact a law that is widely decryed as not being in tune with the American sense of justice that we can overrule them and possibly disbar them from a lifetime appointment on basis of judging to their own selfish interest rather than the interest of the American soul.
For further clarification, my ideal system would be that should the house choose to impeach a supreme Court Justice and then the supporting of their impeachment would be brought to popular vote by the American people.
Sure that's a little clumsy, but it allows for not just political motivation to rule the Day when it comes to correcting our supreme Court and checking their power.
Quick edit, I would probably also make this a required vote at every congress. At least once a year the house has to vote whether or not to keep the current justices in power or to turn their Fates over to the American people.
The EPA has been claiming high ozone levels in Colorado are due to Utah coal plants (who don't have scrubbers on them).
Utah’s legislature agreed something needed to be done and set aside $2 million — for legal fees to sue the EPA and avoid the extra cleanup.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/03/08/colorado-air-pollution-utah-ozone-epa/
As a Utahn, it pisses me off that we still have fucking coal plants here. We have 200-250 days of sun here. Shit, we're at 4-5000 feet of elevation, so the solar flux is fucking intense. Why the fuck haven't we built solar panels and shut these plants down? Why aren't our reservoirs covered in at least some number of panels to cut the evaporation? Rather than fix that, let's scum up the air for us and our neighbors with our shitty 1900s era coal plants and our fucking oil refineries that help contribute to some of the worst air quality in North America when an inversion hits Salt Lake City.
I have nothing but contempt for the basket of cunts our gerrymandered districts keep shitting out. It's amazing how ugly the politics can be in such a beautiful place.
Utah has some of my favorite places earth. It's almost painful how beautiful it can be. It really is a shame what the government there does.
I wonder how much of a gratuity the Republican justices are going to get for this ruling.
Be sure to tip your senator!
We should be ~~rioting~~ protesting for that. Tell me the days and I'll be in DC. I can also help plan.
Not sure anything like that is put together, but a good start is to call your rep and senators and ask them to close the various loopholes that the courts have put in US bribery law, both the after-the-fact-gratuity one and the explicit (instead of implicit) quid-pro-quo one.
In a matter of hours scotus has has legalized bribery, promoted pollution, and fucked everyone. All because of Republican appointed judges. Next time anyone tells you both sides are the same, do tell them to go fuck themselves.
Coney Barrett has actually had a couple moments this years where she has popped out of the conservative dogma bubble. I wonder if the other women on the court can pull her out of the echo chamber.
Colorado needs to tax the shit out of everything coming from and going to Utah, everyone should. Fuck it, tax the Mormon churches to make up for their theologically driven state of pollution.
All churches should be taxed. There is no valid reason for an exception.
Yes, Congress explicitly empowered you to do this, and yes you may be protecting citizens rights to not have corporations cover them with harmful, painful pollution… but it might eat into the profits of some of our bribery-patrons, so we’ve decided that we are going to supersede Congress’s authority on this. We’ll figure out our weasely reasoning later.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The rule is intended to restrict smokestack emissions from power plants and other industrial sources that burden downwind areas with smog-causing pollution.
The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has increasingly reined in the powers of federal agencies, including the EPA, in recent years.
The court is currently weighing whether to overturn its 40-year-old Chevron decision, which has been the basis for upholding a wide range of regulations on public health, workplace safety and consumer protections.
Three energy-producing states — Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia — have challenged the air pollution rule, along with the steel industry and other groups, calling it costly and ineffective.
Those states are Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.
Ground-level ozone, which forms when industrial pollutants chemically react in the presence of sunlight, can cause respiratory problems, including asthma and chronic bronchitis.
The original article contains 608 words, the summary contains 146 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News