Meet Your New EV and Emissions Experts!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 лип 2024
- Last month the US Supreme Court handed down a ruling which could, in addition to many other challenges could terminate the US's ability to switch to cleaner methods of transportation. It could mean that the EPA and NHTSA can no longer regulate tailpipe emissions.
We take a look at the ruling and explain what that means for the future of EVs in the US.
----
00:00 - Introduction
01:11 - A Little Bit of History
03:13 - What is the Chevron Deference
05:35 - A One Sentence Summary
06:20 - The Court's New Decision
08:50 - The Impact of the Ruling on Climate and EVs
11:50 - Conclusions
14:21 - Thanks and Credits
----
Find our postal address: www.transportevolved.com
Buy one this month's T-Shirt: www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/159...
-----
Script: Kate Walton-Elliott, Nikki Gordon-Bloomfield
Presenter: Kate Walton-Elliott
Editor, Colorist: Kate Walton-Elliott
Art and Animation: Erin Carlie
Producer: Nikki Gordon-Bloomfield
Background Image: Anthony Quintano - CC-BY-2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...)
© Transport Evolved LLC, 2024
-----
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @transportevolved
This video was made possible thanks to the kind donations of our supporters on Patreon and Ko-fi. Join them in supporting us.
Support us on Patreon: / transportevolved
Buy the team a coffee -- or a meal!
ko-fi.com/transportevolved
Donate using bitcoin: BC1QRZRGCCXUKPDZ2DZ9KX9JYJXMZDYHYGFZ0MN4WH
Support us by buying some merch at www.redbubble.com/people/Tran...
Follow our 'second' channel - Transport Evolved Take Two, at / transportevolvedtake2
Join our Discord server at / discord
Follow the show on Mastodon: mastodon.transportevolved.com/
Follow the show on PeerTube: transport_evolved_main@peertube.tv
Use the TE Aptera referral code - i.refs.cc/zz56EbIi - but watch our explainer video FIRST: • Aptera is Back. It's a...
Sign up for EnergySage at www.energysage.com/p/transpor... - Авто та транспорт
To quote Anne Richards, "I vote because if you're not at the table, you're on the menu." Please continue to talk politics. Your discernment is solid.
The battle is never over folks that's the sad truth. We cannot rest on our laurels.
I don't even think we got our Laurels yet
+1 for the Slartibartfast reference.
Glad you liked it - I threw that in the script because Kate said that she was worried her "angrily written prose" was a little too spicy. So I added the HTTG reference to smooth it out ;) - Nikki.
Gone are the days of independent SCOTUS. Keep Evolving Kate!!!
Evolution involves reproduction, you know very well these types are sterile.
Not how evolution works, these will be weeded from the gene pool.
Broken branch does not evolve.
Excellent report Kate. 👍Over here in Blighty it's absolutely terrifying watching developments in the US. I've never understood how a court can be neuteal and unbiased if its appointed by politicians in the way that it is over there.🤯
I would be greatly relieved to find out the Earth was an experiment run by Benjy Mouse and Frankie Mouse to find the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything.
Which is 42!
Of course this is ridiculous; it comes from Trump appointed judges. What else would you expect?
Its entire rational for anyone who isn't into government overreach.
This is really important for people to understand. Thanks for making this video.
"The courts take even longer to decide than the senate!" -- Padme
How many countries even have a senate?
@@wolfgangpreier9160 As a first approximation: there are 56 Commonwealth Countries.
Their systems will typically be based on the British Parliamentary system, which includes a Senate for "sober second thought".
@@jamesphillips2285 Thx, did not know that one.
Oh Kate, Thank you so much for highlighting these issues so clearly and with such aplomb! I just want to scream when I see such idiocy coming from this SCOTUS.
The cover pic for this video with SCOTUS marked as EV experts... I about spit out my coffee laughing
So glad you liked it - Erin did a good job ;) - Nikki.
Don't waste good coffee over this supremely corrupt Court
It made my eyes get wide, but Yes!
14:30 thank you for sharing your views on this topic. Very nice presentation.
Thanks, Kate, for this video. I take your point that nitrous oxide is not toxic to the same extent as what I would call the other NOx's, but it is not innocuous, neither as a drug, nor environmentally. The adverse patient effects, when used appropriately and for brief periods, rarely cause significant problems, but inappropriate or prolonged use can definitely be harmful in various ways. I won't go into details. From an environmental perspective, nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas. Also, in the upper atmosphere, it undergoes reactions, converting it into other oxides of nitrogen, which are ozone-depleting.
SCOTUS is likely to select a winner based on expectations of the "tip/bribe" size they are likely to collect. So, you can get all the justice you can buy, if you are a wealthy corporation.
Where is your case proof?
SCOTUS won't select a winnner at all, their masters will. The SCOTUS justices are merely employees of the Federalist Society.
Makes sense, as they also just legalized bribing government officials (so long as the payoff comes after the favor) including themselves by throwing out the existing restrictions.
Sounds at least more likely than any other explanation ...
@@mikewallace8087 This is an anticipatory statement, not historical. However, with the already public information about Clarence Thomas and the gifts and trips given to him by Harlan Crow, it is not unreasonable to surmise that future justices could also be given expensive services or items for perhaps no reason, or perhaps for a reason.
5:05 but TX Rep Barton said Wind is a finite source, and a town in North Carolina expressed concerns the solar farm proposed would suck energy from the sun. Of course they vote, but these being quotes from almost 10 years ago maybe they went out maskless.
Yes, and wind turbines are using up all the wind and killing all the birds.
Although the birds are also no real and have been replaced with robot spy birds.
Just be sure you have your towel ready.
Fantastic analysis. Thank you.
Thank you for a thoughtful video. It will be interesting to see how this affects automotive and truck fuels. Oil companies spend a lot of money on processing units to produce components that help fuels meet environmental requirements. This opens the door to roll at least some of this back. Just one more area where this ruling will add tipsy turviness.
Murphys law seems to be applicable here.
Again, thanks for the video.
Oh yay! Leaded gas again!
Fantastic nod to Douglas Adams.
Great video. Depressing. But thank you for keeping us informed on this.
POTUS needs to just pack the court yesterday.
How's his brain btw, or is your "expert" opinion found wanting again.
Wait..what..judges are hypocrites. Wow, who saw that coming. :) Great video! Thank You!
Shades of that predictive novel, 1984: up is down, good is bad...
Yep. Every case. Even the ones they think they CAN'T win. Why? Because they can delay delay delay for decades.
Cheaper to tie things up in the court than to clean up their factory, even at the exorbitant rates some of the scummier lawyers charge.
Yet again greed and having profit as the primary motivation ruins things for the rest of us.
$$$ decides how friendly the court is.😂
🙌🙃😵💫
Problem with the Chevron doctrine has been regulatory capture of the agencies by corporations and revolving door politics... so yes, courts will be worse, but Chevron wasn't working. Look towards European regulation similar to this for better answers on how public-private partnership can lead to better technical decisions while avoiding legal games and capture.
@@mikahundin Not too unlike a captured court.
@@M.J.212 Institutional capture is worse, the "experts" of concensus group think are unaccountable. Simply look at what they failed to say about Bidens brain.
It's the robes, makes em an expert of everything.
They need fun Barrister wigs too, official bikini inspector t-shirts. Remember the wisdom of "I like beer"
@@rp9674 put a official bikini inspector shirt on over that robe and they just instantly become gods.
Also places them ABOVE THE LAW.
The only 'people' left in the USA are Corporations and Shareholders.
Love love love the references to HHGTTG 😅... Great video - thanks :)
Hehe glad you liked it - Nikki.
My biggest concern is throughput. The sensible model is for elected politicians to set the general policy in laws and have experts convert to detailed procedures taking into consideration all facts including whether adding lead to soft drinks made sense. Now enabling ( requiring) all cases to be brought in front of 9 people ( or the equivalent at the state level) will mean all laws and their resulting procedures cannot be enacted.
Good assessment. Thanks.
Great video.
Vote out the GOP up and down your ticket. Otherwise it will be the last voting choice you'll make.
We also need to ignore the illegitimate court.
i really dont think the choice of party will matter much in this situation.
@@scottmcshannon6821 "Both sides" is bullshit. One side actually has a track record of delivering meaningful, helpful policy changes, abs the other side has a clear record of dismantling government and harming people. So get out of here with that attitude and repugnant point of view and vote blue because, yes, they will be the ONE choice you have to actually reverse some of this damage.
It could help prevent a biased judge appointment, or blocking of a qualified judge appointment
@@rp9674 lol biased judge. What do the "experts" say about Bidens brain?
@@rp9674 as if you haven't noticed the cartoonishly biased democrat judges, or Bidens dementia.
The Chrome/Firefox extension 'Element Blocker' makes those pesky UA-cam "info panels" which are little more than propaganda most times vanish after targeting them 👍
Thanks
I hope these experts research emissions by putting their tailpipes inside their cars.
Your tailpipe is back at the carbon fueled powerplant that powers the electric generator that feeds your battery charger.
@@mikewallace8087 Nope. Little you know. I've been driving on clean, green, free sunshine from my rooftop for over 13 years. As for those "many others" you mention below, they are emitting far less than people in gas mobiles, despite the "long tailpipes." FAR less. Math doesn't lie.
. Over a typical 5-year car loan (60K miles):
. AVG GAS CAR EV Total GHG: 71,178 lbs. 42,832 lbs. . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Manufacturing: 14,000 lbs. 23,520 lbs. Upstream: 11,437 lbs. 19,312 lbs. Tailpipe: 45,741 lbs. 0 lbs.
@@Yanquetino That's just you , many others feed off the beast . You live in your world and ignore the BIG picture.
@@mikewallace8087 And even those "many others" are emitting far less than people in gas mobiles, despite the "long tailpipes." FAR less. Math doesn't lie.
Over a typical 5-year car loan (60K miles):
. AVG GAS CAR EV
Total GHG: 71,178 lbs. 42,832 lbs.
. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Manufacturing: 14,000 lbs. 23,520 lbs.
Upstream: 11,437 lbs. 19,312 lbs.
Tailpipe: 45,741 lbs. 0 lbs.
Everyone of them has the perfect experimental chamber to do their tests. Its called closed garage.
Wow! Amazing!
Your video is great. One issue is over the ability of intelligent but non-experts to make valid decisions. I’ve been an expert witness in court cases and found that judges are capable of making fair and reasonable decisions when the facts are clearly explained. But does the Supreme Court ( or lower courts) have the bandwidth to hear all the cases
As the most recent term demonstrated, absolutely not… :( Nikki
101% spot on, the court must be card carrying members
of the flat earth society!
The Earth is 9,000 years old, flat and center of the universe
You t-shirt looks great where can I get one,in 2xl ❤️👍😁
Head to our red bubble shop! - www.redbubble.com/people/transportevd/shop
9:10 basically the court of today is the church of England deciding whether or not we are the center of the universe or not.
You mean this 9,000 year old flat earth, of course it's the center of the universe
Aaaaaand we’re all toast. Thanks US. Nice job.
The case that was decided here was about who should pay for inspectors on fishing boats. It was not technical at all. It was about the words in the law. Guess who the experts on interpreting words in law are, Judges. The regulation in question was crushing a family business. Chevron Deference was terrible law. When laws are interpreted by government agencies, the decision makers are not high-minded experts. They are politically appointed "managers". There are experts in the agencies. But they are advisors, not decision makers. If Pete Buttgieg, Alejandro Mayorkas or Betsy DeVos approve an interpretation, I want judicial review.
Technical words in a legal document do not mean a judge can understand - Nikki.
@@transportevolvedthat’s why both sides present technical inputs. Judges get input from both sides. Political appointees may not.
" too many beers"
Dark days lay ahead friends… we need to stick together.
"Remember, folks, you're talking to people who can debate the meaning of the word, no." - John McCain talking to media barons about regulations.
First time I have heard a transportation person talk about this! I don't want Clarence Thomas inspecting my air conditioner, water quality, the air I breathe.
Great show.
and I don't want a demented president, you pretend to "trust" the experts when convenient.
It's '42' all other again. Thanks for the fish.
Hard Core Caveat Emptor!
It probably would not be so bad if the Supreme Court of the US wasn’t so partisan. The idea of a Judge taking advice from experts is as old as the judiciary however if the judge can decide what advice to ignore and what to include or worse, can decide a matter based on their own their own biases or loyalties then you have a problem. In any event, applying a law decision to a scientific problem allows for latitude in the interpretation which is the antithesis of actual science which should always apply the best definitions of the available evidence. If judicial interpretation is allowed on scientific matters then physics and chemistry no longer have rules. The bottom line is that the overturning of the rule provides three major advantages to unethical corporations. It provides loopholes that don’t otherwise exist, It widens existing loopholes and extends decisions in courts long enough s to make any decisions irrelevant.
It’s a bit scary watching the gradual erosion of law and ethical consideration among the major powers at the moment. Putin and the Russian federation seem completely devoid of even the most basic human ethics, Jingpin,s China has purged their Central Peoples Party of anyone seen as a threat to the great leader and no one wants to be the bearer of bad news so he is on a diet of bull%7it, The US has the potential for either a leader with slight dementia or worse a demented psychopath and all that pertains with no checks or balance, the Middle East is at flashpoint again, France and Germany both have right wing influences in government and it’s getting worse and every NATO country in Europe is gearing up for a war. Different players but very similar circumstances to prior to WW1. (Let’s not even mention the sudden rise in tension on the Korean peninsula.)
Add the odd existential threat of abrupt climate change and nuclear war and we are living in those ‘interesting times’ our ancestors warned us about.
Nice to see you again Kate, well spoken and explained. I share your frustration albeit from the antipodes.
Its a lot of words ignoring "experts" are not what they claim to be and are hardly unbiased. Simply look at how many stayed quiet on Bidens dementia.
Remember, this is the same Supreme Court that says payola paid to judges after they have ruled in your favour is not a crime! (But I'm sure they'd claim the same payment to a regular bureaucrat is a crime.)
Sadly, my Representative is a person who has been seriously auditioning for a spot in any possible future Trump admin... Heck, she even thinks she could be VP! My Senators are more useful though. I'll be contacting them (and my Rep too, why not?) and we'll work to do what we can do.
It'd be a shame if they tripped over their stupid long red necktie
Thanks for your reasoned analysis. As someone who spent most of his career in scientific research I certainly agree with you. However, in my naive youth I attended law school. Mainly because of my interest in politics and the the idea that courts promote an ideal called 'justice'. In first year i learned i was wrong. Rather than using the law objectively to arrive at a decision, much of the time judges first decide how they want to rule based on their own biases, and then they determine how to justify that decision with some kind of reasoning, no matter how far fetched. Time to expand this court with Democrat appointees!
3:00 we see steam venting ? What is that gas condensate ?
I musta missed where we voted for these experts. Were they on the ballot?
By proxy, yes. they’re appointed by people WE elect.
@@transportevolved lol. They are hired as civil servants into organizations whose motivations are not exactly what they are advertised to be. Nobody ever gets fired for incompetence. Goal is always to not get fired before retirement. If you had ever worked with some, you would understand exactly what I'm talking about.
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance"; now more true than ever and fatal if neglected.
It’s (N2O)fairly benign to have a patient breathe it for several hours. It is a terribly potent greenhouse gas though, I agree on that and advocate others to stop using it.
But we’re living in a time where everyone is an expert on any subject and everyone’s opinion matters
It's so depressing how destructive this supreme court has been. It's hard to find hope for things to get better. :/
Your dishonesty is awesome.
This is an excellent ruling. Agencies should only be able to create rules in line with what our elected reps pass laws. Unelected employees do not have the authority to make rules with the force of law unless authorized by congress. This ruling allows agencies full authority to make rules as long as they abide by the law and no further.
Agencies can no longer make up their rules and then act as their own judge when someone challenges the rules. Agencies arent kings either that can do whatever they want
WOW i like the new hair style 00:05
2:05 Being a big fan of the latest decision re "Chevron" for reasons having nothing to do with EVs, I'm anxious to hear what will obviously be a completely different view from mine. (And since I do share your disposition toward EVs, I bring only friendly ears) :)
So far all that's been talked about are the OBVIOUS repercussions.
Just wait till the unintended repercussions start to roll in.
On such a far ranging ruling as this is, there will be massive amounts of unintended repercussions.
"May you live in 'interesting' times, indeed!
This is basically the exact opposite of that this country and planet needed.
Wow, this ruling has the potential to send the US into (further) complete chaos. Thanks for the video, though I find the Cavanaugh references more distracting than helpful to your argument. It doesn't matter very much that he was a binge drinker in College. It matters that he is a nutbar who creates bad rulings.
You should have included the clip of Amy Coney Barrett failing to name the five rights protecteded by the First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom of Petition. This solidifies your point about expertise as she was being nominated to become an expert on the US Constitution.
Note recent EPA rules where they limit TALPIPE emissions of vehicles rather than Life Cycle Emissions. It completely ignores CO2 associated with the manufacture of vehicles or charging of EVs. If you don't care about carbon that's fine. But assuming you actually care about carbon, you must have life cycle analysis. This decision was made by non-experts who wanted a simplistic message to sell.
Tired old disinformation, bendy bunk'd a million times, EVS are much cleaner over a lifetime
@@rp9674 Then it would make more sense to have a life cycle analysis, wouldn't it.
@@MLFranklin Your method also creates a situation where each individual car has the emissions standard of when it was produced. Electric vehicles would end up having the emissions standard of the entire electric grid. The most you could complain about is that particular electric motors might be slightly less efficient than others. What's worse is that you are trying to state that you know whether every resource was mined or not, and you wouldn't.
@@MLFranklinit's been done
@ronaldking1054 gassers get dirtier with age, EVs can get cleaner with cleaner electrical sources
Lead - Romans . . . Yeah that turned out well . . .
They could have just asked Pete Buttigieg, he seems to get EVS & energy, isn't he right there in the same district?
Rule by unaccountable bureaucrats, how about no.
I have pollution triggered asthma and ended up in the ER last week. As an environmentalist and biologist since 1986, I'm dismayed at this ruling. Sets us back our progress for clean air. I have to run two air cleaners 24/7 in my home because the air quality is so poor here in Palm Springs. High Ozone levels and other very dangerous micro particles of pollution, in addition to silica can get deep down in the lungs, cause inflammation, illness, lung disease and COPD. I don't go outdoors unless the air quality is monitored to be in the healthy range. Had air alerts for the last week, so it's been difficult to get my outdoor exercise in. I have one vote in November. I will be voting for the man who isn't a convicted felon and adjudicated rapist, who cares for this country, not just himself. If the right wing extremist want to attack what I've said here or the moderators want to remove my post--thats fine. I still believe in freedom of speech and the right to speak my mind and to stand up against these bullies attacking our LGBTQ community, calling us all pedophiles. I still have my morals intact and can't vote for a criminal. Speak your mind, Stand up and fight this authoritarian movement that has the LGBTQ community in its targets---Just read Project 2025. Chilling and scary!
Australian here. It looks like the US is about to go backwards on the environment for a while unfortunately. These religious non-science/anti-science adjudicators are exercising power where they are not qualified. On a related issue, the most important *immediate* issue is air pollution where we breathe rather than greenhouse gas emissions. The effects of air pollution on human (and animal) health is much worse than we thought. I encourage readers to inform themselves about this important topic. And this is THE major reason for transitioning to electric vehicles as soon as possible.
Gosh Kate You're looking really cute these days! I've long since found you to be a beautiful human being as well.❤
Supremely Corrupt Court: what do you mean by what
I still think in the end, technology trumps politics and EVs are gonna end up being more profitable technology
But there's over a century of various players fighting EVs because they democratize transportation whereas powering transport with scarce fuels helps monopolies
I'll never go back to gas junk too much maintenance for me
Chevron was BAD...beyond bad, it was horrible. It went completely against the constitution and was used in countless ways by federal agencies against both businesses and private individuals to exert control. Under Chevron, the department of agriculture could call a pond a swamp to prevent farmers from farming, they could call a coal truck a mine as well as the building where it was parked, even if it was a diner. Any law that congress passed that was somewhat unclear, a federal agency could make up their own laws to fill in the gaps.
I'm sorry but it's the judicial branch's role to interpret laws, not the executive branch. Courts still have the option to side with the federal agencies, but they are no longer bound to follow them. This is a massive benefit in some situations where Chevron was obviously being abused, but I suspect that in the majority of cases, the courts will continue to give deference to the agencies. Even if the courts do not side with the agency, experts in the field will be able to give testimony to explain why an alternative interpretation than the agency's interpretation may be better.
Chevron Deference is a double edge sword. In some ways it makes it easier to enact positive change in environmental rules (EPA) and in others it has been used by captured agencies to put people in jail for art (ATF - Matt Hoover). Whether one agrees, or not, with all the principles laid out in Bill of Rights Chevron Deference has been abused by many agencies. With it Rules have force of law instead of actual law codified by Congress. These rules are easy to arbitrarily put one in prison based on interpretation of Rules. Not ok per the constitution. The Constitution can be amended via Amendments and law should not be amended by Rules.
YES .
When was the last amendment? 1992. The 27th amendment, it forbids changes to the salary of congress members from taking effect until the next election. It took over **200** YEARS to be passed.
The 26th amendment, setting the voting age to 18, was done in 1971.
Amendments, changing the constitution, were supposed to be easy and done every decade or so. That didn't happen.
All this ruling does is give more power to the already too powerful corporations.
So you want the governing body to make rules that make complete sense. 1) the majority of those people have no idea on most decisions they make. 2) Two laws that make complete sense may be at odds with each other, just take Brexit in the UK and Northern Ireland, the WTO regulations require a border between two countries to allow customs control and taxation regulations to be applied, the Good Friday agreement signed into UK and Eire law requires no border. There was no issue when The UK was part of the EU but now we aren't we have Schrodinger's border. The US Supreme court is made up of nine people who may be experts in their field but not experts in all fields.
Chevron required deference be shown to reasonable interpretations of the original authorizing legislation by the relevant technical agencies. It never protected regulations from being challenged on the grounds they were unreasonable interpretations of the original authorizing legislation,
Also, the thumbnail is a bit childish....
The Justices are supposed to be Constitutional Experts, NOT EV experts, that's not their job.
As much as you and I might love electric vehicles, it's not our government's job to FORCE the population to use them. Obviously as a liberal you feel that the government's job IS to FORCE the populace to obey certain rules your group deems necessary.
And while we'll agree that personal nukes shouldn't be an individual Right, we certainly disagree that it's the government's job to dictate what we can drive, I couldn't possibly disagree more.
If you and your liberal minded friends want more support from conservatives like myself, you need to stop resisting nuclear power. EVs DO save money over the long haul which is why I'm a fan (I'm not so in love with gasoline that I'll pay more to use it). But until America embraces nuclear power as Europe has we'll continue to power our EVs with coal.
Of course these agencies doesn't have any kind of bias or anything towards to either give an example of a farmer and agency comes out and sees a little piece of wet ground oh this is wetlands and then I can't use it for another $150,000 years because he calls it Wetlands when he really doesn't know what a Wetlands is either
2:35 but that Republican party is dead, consumed by the darkside.
Now the orange party
Thank you for pronouncing my name correctly. I am a proud supporter of this channel... and this comment is also for the "stoopid" algorithm (powered by "Eeeediots").
Nikki here - if I'm doing it wrong, please let me know! :)
@@transportevolved Not at all. It was a pleasant surprise. Usually, my name gets "murdered". That was definitely not the case here.
P.S. By now you can tell I have something against the algorithm.
@@Roddy451 H! No problems. I was worried Kate had got it right and I'd got it wrong - Nikki.
@@transportevolved I am not going to nitpick. In English, it is Rudolph, and the nicks are Roddy, or more commonly, "Rudy." So, I typically get the chant from the movie Rudy everywhere I go.
You are wrong. The judges don't need any technical knowledge. They just decide for the plaintiff who pays the biggest bribe. See, no knowledge necessary. The advantage to the judges is they get great vacations and new cars.
Dishonest title gets you a dislike. The issue is that laws are supposed to be created by elected representatives, not unaccountable bureaucrats.
Thomas Sowell: The problem with intellectuals and experts . Yes you owe it to all to view that discussion.
Another Tim Scott.
@@0756rocketman define / refine your view.
Maybe we should understand what Chevron Deference actually turned into instead of your pie in the sky interpretation. What it turned into was very little people with very big power, and we know power corrupts. We ended up with regulations that meant if you had a mudpuddle on your property it was "wetlands" and not your anymore. or a pond was "navigable waters" or the BATFE redefining a private gun transaction as requiring a FFL and then raiding and killing a man for violating their "law". Or bumpstocks are machineguns, or the thousands and thousands of overreaching and unnecessary regulations imposed on everyday citizens by agencies out of control. They can still come up with their regulations, but now they have to justify them. This is so much more than your little pet peeve.
Justice Free Vacations and Justice Upside-Down Flag should both be impeached. We need to reform and expand the Supreme Court. This ruling will have a wide range of negative consequences across the board.
What about the scientists who said that the last medical intervention was safe and effective but turns out wasn't
So next time don't go to the hospital and pharmacy for medical help, but to the court.
Why does education for judges lack science?
9 people cannot feasibly run the whole government. This is not tenable and should be immediately sent back to them.
When airplanes start falling from the sky, things will change and change fast.
Yeah, up until now it's just been a part at a time.
Thomas Sowell: The problem with intellectuals and experts . You owe it to all to view that discussion.
Have loved the wisdom of Thomas Sowell since the mid-1980s.
Nice it ioke likes they are from the same school also so they will talking the same bull
The only technical reference the SCOTUS needs is the Bible.
Isn't that horrible.
@@patrick247two love the neighbor as your self , you should not kill, do not steal, rest for 1 day a week,don’t lie, man these are very bad ideas the Bible teaches
@@JoseLuis2ball2k Take the first commandment.
'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.'
How many other gods are there for me to choose from? It's like saying 'Holden is better than Ford, buy me.'
Three of the examples you mention are what I would call part of the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' developed by the World Community through the offices of the United Nations.
Don't worry about the rest of the world, we know that the US is and will be behind in environmental matters. The US is a simple wasteful economy that, even though it has moved much of its production (emissions consumed) out of its territory, still has some of the highest emissions per capita. In recent years, there has been more investment in this field even in highly populated places like India. So the pro-fossil ignorant regimes can follow the US example, but for the rest this decision will not change their interest because they can calculate the cost of doing nothing.
SCOTUS must have adopted Trump's mantra: "I know more than [insert anything here] than anybody."
Thomas Sowell: The problem with intellectuals and experts . You owe it to all to view that discussion. Do it today.
Conservatives HATE education and factual information. They have a war on it. They have clearly stated their hatred for education and disdain for facts based on scientific method of observation, data, and verification. They have been trying to create a new Dark Age, where theocracy rules over all.
You should read some Plato, because you are in the cave screaming at the shadows on the wall.
Yeah nowhere here did I see how owning an EV means I should support a step towards a technocratic or scientific dictatorship. I’d rather stick with the current flawed system until something better comes along.
no such thing as expertx or for or etc
Shiiiiiiit!!
Now I know where a part of the nazis went from here ...
0:15 you place your politics on a billboard here lady. Thank You for wearing your true colors.
Orange? She's really Dutch?