Supreme Court Outrages Republicans With Split Decision Ruling

D

Damn spell check.
POV

 

Impossible to expect that of anyone, even judges. Literally impossible. Life is all about POV's. Your POV of a setting sun will be different than my POV even if we're standing side by side rubbing shoulders.

I mean come on, there are people that are arguing about what a woman is and you expect judges to think exactly alike? They're not robots. And even if they were their programing would still be based on the programmers POV.

 

Yes. They should. That is literally their job and the entire reason that we have them around to begin with. To decide what laws are or are not instituted. That is why they have the ability to investigate. That is why they have the ability to call forth witnesses and experts.

 

I understand humanity.

Judge's however, need to act on facts alone.
It's their job to keep personal bias out.
Especially on the highest court in the land.

 

I don't trust a body with people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert to making such decisions.

 

Having a different POV =/= personal bias either.

 

what is sad is the flamebait headline from the Democrat news source. I see no Republicans voicing their OUTRAGE

A Republican that stands for states rights and understands the Constitution knows that states can run themselves into a pit with silly regulations if they are so inclined. Folks can then choose to either A do business with those silly states or if they live there, and see that their votes create financial havoc, can move from the state. We DO NOT want more DC control; we want less

 

Conservatives say everything should be a states rights issue unless it’s an issue they don’t agree with and then the federal government should intervene.

California should be able to set regulations on items produced in their state, manufactured in their state or sold in their state.

 

But you trust anonymous strangers that care more about their agenda's or special interests than you? At least in Congress those 3 people you mentioned can be overridden by the rest or removed by The People voting. No such thing is possible with those in the FDA.

 

Of course it is.

 

You do know that liberals and leftists doing the same thing right?

 

No, its not. A personal bias is being in favor/against something regardless of any argument made. A point of view is, as it says right in it, about a viewpoint. While a personal bias can be a POV, a POV does not mean a personal bias.

 

It's a split decision. But look at the judges who voted for and against. You had a mixture of "liberal and conservative" on both sides of opinionating that it was not a Constitutional Issue and 4 who said it was, which means they wanted to make an official ruling on a Constitutional basis of said law. But the thing about it is, it is state law and applies in an intrastate capacity. Producers don't have to sell in California if they don't want to, regardless of the new requirements or not. The proposition basically increased the standards that were in place since 2008 or so. The voters decided and approved the measure by 63% to 37% overall.

 

The whole job of a Supreme Court justice is to give an opinion, aka points of view, in rendering its decision. That has been the case since Marbury v Madison and every Supreme Court case since then. All the judges opinionated was whether this was a Constitutional issue or not. 5 said no, 4 said yes. Both the ones who said no and yes, you had a mixture of both liberal and conservative judges.

 

They have that authority because of Congress. Back in 1906, we were still pretty interested in following the constitution. One wonders how bad the food must have been to warrant such a measure taken by Congress.

 

Um. If this was an easy thing, we wouldn’t need an entire branch of government to handle it. A mixed decision says far more than a decision that runs party lines.

 

But I thought all the conservative judges were bought and paid for

 

So, you're a big fan of salmonella and such, huh?

 

He just wants Congress s to convene and rubber stamp their decisions. The thing is, food producers don’t plan their food contamination schedule around Congress’ scheduled time in DC, so recalling meat when Congress is out of session could prove challenging.

 

While the FDA's Predecessor was established in 1906 they did not have regulatory authority, it was an enforcement agency that worked at enforcing the provisions in the Wiley Act. And even then they faced many judicial obstacles that curtailed their abilities. It wasn't until 1930 that the name "FDA" was used. Over many decades the power of the FDA grew as Congress abdicated its authority to them more and more.

 

I promise you, federal government isn't the best way to have that.

 

Higher food prices. Just what we need. Thanks California.

 

You don't have safe food to eat?

 

I'm not sure Congress rubber stamping their proposals adds much to the process. Which specific FDA policy offends

We do because regulations exist.

 

Only if you live in California, not so much everywhere else.