Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade?

Quote: rxwine

It's more like going to coal country and asking if they prefer mining coal at breakneck speed or helping out with a central policy of national environmental protection worked out by a collection of related specialists. Nah, we'd prefer mining. The tobacco industry certainly preferred its heyday.

So you are okay with every government agency going out and forgetting the limits of laws placed on them and just doing what they want?

I think they need to be regulated, follow those regulations, and the actual elected folks can give them additional input on what they can do via laws.

Government agencies will take as much power as you don’t stop them from taking. More so when they figure they don’t need to worry about elected folk.

Quote: RonC

So you are okay with every government agency going out and forgetting the limits of laws placed on them and just doing what they want?

I think they need to be regulated, follow those regulations, and the actual elected folks can give them additional input on what they can do via laws.

Government agencies will take as much power as you don’t stop them from taking. More so when they figure they don’t need to worry about elected folk.

Insert sigh here. Saying the EPA runs undisputed policy easily is fabricated nonsense. They get local political objections and lawsuits all the time. Yes, I know national policy will unavoidably step on local interests. That's why they make enemies.

The quote is from CNBC.

"China is now responsible for more than 27% of total global emissions. The U.S., which is the world’s second-highest emitter, accounts for 11% of the global total. India is responsible for 6.6% of global emissions, edging out the 27 nations in the EU, which account for 6.4%, the report said."

So China is responsible for more CO2 emissions than the US, India and the EU combined. But lets continue to destroy the US way of life to reduce CO2 before we are able to provide the alternates. This will also save CO2 because the coming war with China won't last as long defeating an already destroyed US.

The above doesn't include Russia which is the 4th largest CO2 emitter.

But go ahead and ride your bike to work if it makes you feel better, just don't think it makes a hoot of difference.

Quote: rxwine

Insert sigh here. Saying the EPA runs undisputed policy easily is fabricated nonsense. They get local political objections and lawsuits all the time. Yes, I know national policy will unavoidably step on local interests. That's why they make enemies.

Not what I said.

They exceeded their granted authority.

The court smacked them back to reality. Even the one dissent talked about climate change instead of keeping their dissent to the legal issue at hand.

Quote: kenarman

The quote is from CNBC.

"China is now responsible for more than 27% of total global emissions. The U.S., which is the world’s second-highest emitter, accounts for 11% of the global total. India is responsible for 6.6% of global emissions, edging out the 27 nations in the EU, which account for 6.4%, the report said."

So China is responsible for more CO2 emissions than the US, India and the EU combined. But lets continue to destroy the US way of life to reduce CO2 before we are able to provide the alternates. This will also save CO2 because the coming war with China won't last as long defeating an already destroyed US.

The above doesn't include Russia which is the 4th largest CO2 emitter.

But go ahead and ride your bike to work if it makes you feel better, just don't think it makes a hoot of difference.

Yeah, but look at the population difference between U.S. and China. We have roughly 300ish million, they have 1.5 billion. That is 5X our population and only 2.5X our emmissions.....

So when you look at energy per citizen, even China has less emission than the U.S....

China also has a larger land area that is used, so they have more geographical power needs.


India is actually pretty good per capita, they are not quite as populous as China, but over 1bil. And, less emissions than us (granted they have plenty of other environmental issues....)


When you scale per capita, America has pretty bad emissions (even without scaling its pretty bad), and this change is only going to make it worse..... We have a lot of work to do to get to EU levels.

Quote: kenarman

The quote is from CNBC.

"China is now responsible for more than 27% of total global emissions. The U.S., which is the world’s second-highest emitter, accounts for 11% of the global total. India is responsible for 6.6% of global emissions, edging out the 27 nations in the EU, which account for 6.4%, the report said."

So China is responsible for more CO2 emissions than the US, India and the EU combined. But lets continue to destroy the US way of life to reduce CO2 before we are able to provide the alternates. This will also save CO2 because the coming war with China won't last as long defeating an already destroyed US.

The above doesn't include Russia which is the 4th largest CO2 emitter.

But go ahead and ride your bike to work if it makes you feel better, just don't think it makes a hoot of difference.

Riding a bike does make you feel better. You should try it.

But anyway, I’ve not a fan of extreme lifestyles changes and big sacrifices. That’s why I’ve railed against the idea of waiting for market forces to apply. Maybe Jimmy Carter wasn’t doing much putting solar panels on the White House, but he had the right idea. You do things earlier so things aren’t so hard later. You don’t start saving for retirement when you know it’s going to be practically impossible to get ready in a short period. It’s the climate deniers who’ve created this situation. Let’s hope they’re right as they think they are.

Quote: Gandler

Yeah, but look at the population difference between U.S. and China. We have roughly 300ish million, they have 1.5 billion. That is 5X our population and only 2.5X our emmissions.....

So when you look at energy per citizen, even China has less emission than the U.S....

China also has a larger land area that is used, so they have more geographical power needs.


India is actually pretty good per capita, they are not quite as populous as China, but over 1bil. And, less emissions than us (granted they have plenty of other environmental issues....)


When you scale per capita, America has pretty bad emissions (even without scaling its pretty bad), and this change is only going to make it worse..... We have a lot of work to do to get to EU levels.

Start by reigning in excessive military spending a bit then. If the US military was a country they’d be the 6th largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions in the world.

Quote: Gandler

Yeah, but look at the population difference between U.S. and China. We have roughly 300ish million, they have 1.5 billion. That is 5X our population and only 2.5X our emmissions.....

So when you look at energy per citizen, even China has less emission than the U.S....

China also has a larger land area that is used, so they have more geographical power needs.


India is actually pretty good per capita, they are not quite as populous as China, but over 1bil. And, less emissions than us (granted they have plenty of other environmental issues....)


When you scale per capita, America has pretty bad emissions (even without scaling its pretty bad), and this change is only going to make it worse..... We have a lot of work to do to get to EU levels.

The problem is that emissions per capita doesn't make a hoot of difference if we are trying to reduce the total amount of carbon going into the atmosphere. The US produces about 10% of the CO2. Cut that in half and the US will only produce 5%. In the meantime China, India and Russia will have increased more than that amount. We haven't even talked about what will happen when the fastest growing populations in the world in Africa start getting more advanced.

Whether or not global warming is real the idea that the US can significantly reduce the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere is a pipe dream. Having the manufacturing not in your country doesn't reduce the carbon only the number you publish for your country. It is the same as California not counting the coal fired electricity it brings in from Utah in its carbon emissions.

Quote: Gandler

When you scale per capita, America has pretty bad emissions (even without scaling its pretty bad), and this change is only going to make it worse..... We have a lot of work to do to get to EU levels.

Per Capita is a bad way to measure it. Measure it by GDP. China has less GDP than the USA but emits more CO2.

Now, this only matters if you believe the global warming hoax. But if we are going to measure lest actually measure.

Historical background on court packing:
"Court packing" is not a legal term. There is no law or constitutional requiremet that there be 9 justices. It is only tradition.

From the outset of his presidency, FDR had known that four of the justices—Pierce Butler, James McReynolds, George Sutherland and Willis Van Devanter—would vote to invalidate almost all of the New Deal. They were referred to in the press as “the Four Horsemen,” after the allegorical figures of the Apocalypse associated with death and destruction. In the spring of 1935, a fifth justice, Hoover-appointee Owen Roberts—at 60 the youngest man on the Supreme Court—began casting his swing vote with them to create a conservative majority.

When FDR began his second term on Mar 4, 1937 these were the ages of the Justices none of whom he had appointed. He felt that the Supreme Court judges had ruled against a significant portion of his proposals to get us out of the depression. His plan to pack the court was if a judge was over age 70 and chose not to retire within a specified term, he could appoint another justice (up to a maximum of 15).

80.3 Brandeis
77.9 Van Devanter - 4H
75.1 McReynolds - 4H
74.9 Sutherland - 4H
74.9 Hughes
71.0 Butler - 4H
66.8 Cardozo
64.4 Stone
61.8 O. Roberts - often joined the 4H
71.9 average age

FDR received widespread backlash against his plan to "pack the court" even from stalwart members of his own party. It was perceived as a naked power grab. As 3 of the horsemen retired and 1 died within 4 years, FDR got his chance to remake SCOTUS.

Willis Van Devanter 2. Jun. 1937 (Retired) FDR 2nd term -4H
George Sutherland 17. Jan. 1938 (Retired) FDR 2nd term -4H
Benjamin N. Cardozo 9. Jul. 1938 (Died) FDR 2nd term
Louis Brandeis 13. Feb. 1939 (Retired) FDR 2nd term
Pierce Butler 16. Nov. 1939 (Died) FDR 2nd term -4H
James Clark McReynolds 31. Jan. 1941 (Retired) after election FDR to 3rd term -4H
Charles Evans Hughes 30. Jun. 1941 (Retired) FDR 3rd term

When President Joseph Biden began his first term on January 20, 2021, these were the ages of the justices.
82.4 Stephen Breyer (retirement date set)
72.6 Clarence Thomas
70.8 Samuel Alito
66.6 Sonia Sotomayor
66.0 John Roberts
60.7 Elena Kagan
55.9 Brett Kavanaugh
53.4 Neil Gorsuch
49.0 Amy Coney Barrett
64.2 average age


In addition to be 7.7 years younger on average, people live much longer in 2022 than they did in 1937, and often choose to work longer. It is widely believed the Stephen Breyer's seat will be the only one replaced this term and probably the next term as well. As Breyer was appointed by President Clinton, his retirement will not change the balance of the court to become more liberal.