LMAO. Red States are all about deregulating. You really think guys like Abbott aren't owned by the petrochemical industry and construction industry barons? They already get away with slaps on the wrists for blatant safety and health violations at these chemical plants around Houston. They already could care less if construction workers are prone to heat stress or heat strokes without rests to cool down and drink water. Shell chemical plant that burned near Houston had a record of nearly 2,000 violations https://news.oilandgaswatch.org/pos...uston-had-a-record-of-nearly-2-000-violations Abbott’s most generous donors are often titans of the state’s oil and gas, real estate and construction industries — who stand to benefit broadly from Abbott’s posturing against business regulations and in favor of lowering corporate tax burdens. And some have wealth that is much more directly tied to the state government. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/18/greg-abbott-texas-fundraising-governor-donors/
Safety is not a deregulatory issue. There are multiple ways enforcement can be implemented. County regulations are some of the tightest out there. Stop acting like chicken little with everything. I am not endorsing removing oasha as I know little on the debate. There is no point going Fukushima on a complete hypothetical has this point.
OSHA is crucial to saving lives. You are blind if you can't see the ultimate end game. We can't rely on those catering to the billionaires to enforce any type of regulations, inspections, protections, and safety training enforced by OSHA. Abbott’s most generous donors are often titans of the state’s oil and gas, real estate and construction industries — who stand to benefit broadly from Abbott’s posturing against business regulations and in favor of lowering corporate tax burdens. And some have wealth that is much more directly tied to the state government. Hush with your ridiculous chicken little BS. I know plenty about OSHA. You think this is only the beginning? Greg Abbott will override city protections. A new Texas law that overrides city and county ordinances will also eliminate protections currently in place for outdoor workers, such as mandated water breaks, even in extreme heat, according to critics. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/18/greg-abbott-texas-fundraising-governor-donors/
Thomas cites Cass Sunstein . . . hard to argue Sunstein has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation C. Sunstein, "Is OSHA Unconstitutional?" 94 Va. L. Rev. 1407, 1448 (2008), full text at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1288&context=law_and_economics
Opinion | What Happened to the Originalism of the Originalists? - The New York Times (nytimes.com) By David French Opinion Columnist When I read the majority opinion on Monday in Trump v. United States, which held that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for official acts within their “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority and presumptive immunity for all other official acts, I was genuinely and sincerely confused. The Supreme Court’s opinion is difficult to decipher, and in many important ways it is not originalist. For the second time this term — after Trump v. Anderson, which blocked efforts to remove Donald Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — the court has reached a decision that’s truly difficult to square with the constitutional text. What is going on? I reject the simplest explanation — the explanation you can see plastered all over social media — that the court’s conservative majority is biased in favor of Trump. In this era of institutional collapse, I’m certainly more open to allegations of corruption or venality than I was in years past, but it’s hard to square this explanation with the judicial evidence. After all, if the conservative majority was truly in thrall to Trump, the election challenges in 2020 would have had a very different outcome. Instead, conservative judges at every level of the judiciary — including at the Supreme Court — rejected Trump’s specious arguments. Even more, as I’ve explained in detail in long analyses in 2023 and 2024, in many other areas the court has specifically rejected MAGA legal arguments, including by dismissing a dangerous legal theory — called the independent state legislature doctrine — that was one of the cornerstones of Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election and would be the cornerstone of any future effort to disrupt election results. Given this history, however, one would have expected a narrower immunity ruling in Trump v. United States and a narrower ruling in Trump v. Anderson. Instead, the conservative majority created a barrier to prosecuting presidents for even the most blatantly corrupt official acts and blocked any enforcement of Section 3 against candidates for federal office in the absence of congressional action. In reading both decisions, I’m struck by the way the court’s conservative majority (with the partial and notable exception of Amy Coney Barrett) ultimately made a series of policy choices more than it engaged in the kind of close textual analysis that should be the hallmark of originalism. The court’s policy choices are rooted in real concerns, but they’re not textual, they should not be constitutional, and they contradict the wiser judgment of the founders in key ways. ... The Supreme Court isn’t a policy-making body; it’s an interpretive body. Indeed, conservatives often deride any approach that injects the judge’s policy preferences into the textual analysis of the Constitution as a form of “living constitutionalism.” Yet in both cases it was the court’s liberal dissenters who made the better textual case for their position. ... Similarly, the court’s immunity ruling both adds to the Constitution and deviates from its text. You can read the entire document from cover to cover and not find a single reference to presidential immunity, and it’s not as if the founders were unfamiliar with the concept. This is entirely consistent with a constitutional structure that is comprehensively anti-monarchical. The founders could have made the president more powerful and less accountable, but they chose the opposite course — and for good reason. They had fresh experience with the terrible consequences of consolidating power in the hands of one person. Consequently, to the extent that the Constitution speaks at all to presidential criminal liability, it leaves the door wide open. The impeachment judgments clause limits the reach of an impeachment conviction to removal from office and disqualification from future federal office (in other words, impeachment convictions do not function like criminal convictions), but the clause also states, “the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.” The court’s ruling alters that clause — essentially changing the word “shall” to “may.” Even a party convicted after impeachment can still be absolutely immune from prosecution if he was acting while carrying out a “core constitutional power.” Even when the president’s official actions aren’t “core,” they’re still presumptively immune, presenting a high bar for prosecuting any official act. I disagree with the conservative majority in both Trump cases, but not because I think the court is trying to do Trump favors or because I think its policy concerns are frivolous. There are legitimate reasons to worry about rogue prosecutions or rogue efforts to knock candidates from ballots. I disagree with the Supreme Court’s rulings for the most basic reason of all — they do not square with the text of the document the justices are supposed to interpret, and that means they’re granting the presidency a degree of autonomy and impunity that’s contrary to the structure and spirit of American government. In both Trump cases, the liberal minority was more originalist than the conservative majority. This time, it was the conservatives who created a living constitution.
Not finished reading yet (the full SCOTUS opinion), but French is someone who I respectfully agree with more often than not. It's a fair policy choice the majority made over the minority, but it was a policy choice, not an originalist textual interpretation. There is a little bit of vague wiggle room that Roberts left in footnotes saying "don't worry, we're not talking about presidents can accept bribes for pardons," but he's not explicitly saying the "nope, presidents can't do that" either, and the dissent is like "you're saying bribes for treason."
Liberal political humor just isn't funny. They suck at memes. The underlying anger is just too visible. Also, SCOTUS' ruling provides immunity for official acts and for actions related to the core powers of the office. It's not immunity for "anything"... which torpedoes the entire effort of this bad comic strip.
hey jorge/texxx/mojoman/conqueefstador...how does falsely claiming that the election was stolen, pressuring the georgia secretary of state to "find" 11,780 votes and inciting an insurrection against the government fall under "official acts" of president?
That's an easy one -- Democrats undermined confidence in our elections by stuffing ballot boxes, lying about water main breaks in Georgia, coordinating ballot counting in major cities in swing states, breaking chain of custody for ballots, refusing to verify signatures, and many other illegal attempts at altering the outcome of the 2020 election. A sitting President must be actively involved in stopping this fraud, for the good of the republic. Also, there was no insurrection (according to the FBI conclusion) and Trump was referring to a recount with the comment to the Georgia Sec of State -- nothing illegal there... but Dems trying to play word games.
Curious as to what you mean by "butt buddy"? Is this a gay slur? Also, all of the things I listed actually happened. That's the opposite of projection.
No, it is my, you and he are both ASSHOLES, slur. And everything I listed with the 13 year old girl with Trump actually happened. DD
Reported -- we are better than this type of unhinged behavior. Let this be your moment when you gain control of your emotions.
WAH WAH WAH....mod......DD is calling me by my name again, even though I constantly post $hitty stuff on here, please make him stop....wah wah wah.... LOL - reported because you are an *******? That is like saying water is wet. I thought your kind said "**** your emotions" what slogan is the dumb dumber party moving towards now? DD
First you outed tinman and now traderjorge? Have some compassion DD, they are trolls but still deserve the anonymity of the internet in general if they so choose.
