Chuckie Schumer Declares Supreme Count “MAGA” after 9-0 Decision

They love to leave out crucial facts, too.

 

Got it, reading comprehension issues huh?

 

You should probably not so loosely accuse people of that sort of thing.

 

Accuse? You meant question right?

 

“I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh - you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” Schumer told the cheering crowd.

 

It's especially stupid because the whole case concerns Congress not giving the EPA such authority, and a Congressman, Schumer, is complaining.

Given the incredibly broad interpretation usually used concerning the EPA's powers, it's not surprising Schumer has forgotten that actually they aren't dictators and only have the power Congress has given them.

 

He's straight up issued threats to the justices.

It is proper one saying gorsuch to say justice gorsuch but he decided that he didn't need to address them in a proper manner...
. Just issue threats

 

Mar 5, 2020

Here is what Schumer said: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

 

LMAOROG

 

Were there threats?

 

Mar 5, 2020

Here is what Schumer said: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

 

He also promulgated many a falsehood knowing his listeners could not tell the difference,
Had he presented himself as a satirist I would have no problem but he didn't, not the last 20 years or so anyway.
I too have names for him but they'd register here as just ****.

 

I wonder if Chuckie plans to go to the supreme court steps and threaten to get all those justices......

 

Perhaps, but even he might know when he has stepped into it.

 

9-Zip and Chuckles Loses It

CHUCK’S GETTING OLD AND LOSING IT: Huh? Chuck Schumer Slams ‘MAGA Supreme Court’ After A Unanimous Decision.

They are just repeating memorized phrases at this point and not making a lot of sense.


Not getting any younger, not getting any smarter.

'Democrats attempt to smear anybody who goes against their agenda as a “MAGA” extremist — even if those individuals are leftists on the United States Supreme Court.'

'For example, this week, the Supreme Court released a unanimous 9 – 0 decision against the Environmental Protection Agency and the Biden administration, thereby drastically cutting back the federal government’s overreach. So, what did Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) do? Well, he threw them all under the bus with a warning to Americans.'

Now wonder the pro-censor Left hates Twitter:

'Breaking news: The Supreme Court on Thursday cut back the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the nation’s wetlands and waterways, another setback for the agency’s authority to combat pollution. https://wapo.st/3q9g6Nx'

'Readers added context:'
'All 9 judges agreed that the EPA overstepped its authority and that the plaintiffs' property should not be subject to EPA regulation. However, 4 judges disagreed with the majority's opinion on the limits of EPA authority with respect to wetlands. nytimes.com/2023/05/25/us/…'

'Readers added context they thought people might want to know'
'All 9 judges agreed that the EPA overstepped its authority and that the plaintiffs' property should not be subject to EPA regulation. However, 4 judges disagreed with the majority's opinion on the limits of EPA authority with respect to wetlands. nytimes.com/2023/05/25/us/…'

'Context is written by people who use Twitter, and appears when rated helpful by others. Find out more.'

 

Stop supporting this guy...



... and you're more likely to be taken seriously.

 

So says a guy who supports this guy?

 

I think your "logic" is failing you, I and most "liberals" I know don't support Biden, he's too moderate and too old, but given the choice between him and Diaper Donnie, is there a question why Biden received 7,000,000+ more votes?

 

Sounds like an issue between Biden and Dems, I'm happy to stay out of it.

Harvard-Harris 5/17 - 5/18 2004 RV -- 47 40 Trump +7
Economist/YouGov 5/13 - 5/16 1302 RV 3.0 44 42 Trump +2
Marquette 5/8 - 5/18 833 RV 4.1 52 47 Trump +5
ABC News/Wash Post 4/28 - 5/3 900 RV 4.0 45 39 Trump +6

If Trump's leading Biden by 4 or 5 points in the polls, what is the rationale for running Joe Biden?

 

I AGREE: WSJ: A Clean Water Landmark for Liberty at the Supreme Court: In Sackett v. EPA, the Justices rebuke the agency for its land grab over ‘waters of the United States.’

'Michael and Chantell Sackett’s ordeal reveals how rule by an unfettered administrative state can cause significant cost and hardship. For 16 years the couple has been battling the bureaucracy to build a home. The Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers claim their dry property is a wetland subject to federal regulation.'

'The Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes EPA to regulate only “navigable waters” in interstate commerce. Yet the EPA said the Sacketts’ property was connected to a wetland some 30 feet away, which was connected to a ditch that connected to a non navigable creek that connected to a lake. Follow that?'

'Americans anywhere in the country could have their backyard declared a wetland, but they wouldn’t know it until the EPA swoops in and threatens enormous penalties.'

'Does federal jurisdiction really “encompass any backyard that is soggy enough for some minimum period of time?” Justice Samuel Alito asks in the majority opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. “How about ditches, swimming pools, and puddles?”'

'A majority in Rapanos (2006) couldn’t agree on how to limit EPA’s authority over wetlands. Four Justices said the Clean Water Act’s scope extended to “only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water” such as oceans, rivers and lakes, and wetlands that were directly adjacent and “indistinguishable” from those waters.''

'Keep pushing back on the administrative power grabs.'

INDEED

 

Wasn't Hil way up on Diaper Donnie? Hint only his rabid supporters will show up for Diaper Donnie, they'll lose the moderates and "I", again...

 

" I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh - you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” Schumer told the cheering crowd.

 

DRGKL

 

So you just repeated exactly what I posted

 

No. The RCP only had Hillary up by 3 and she underperformed that. So your answer is the rationale for a Biden presidency if Trump is leading in the polls by 4 or 5 points, is that Biden will win anyway?

Good to know!

https://reason.com › volokh › 2023 › 05 › 25 › in-sackett-v-epa-the-supreme-court-cuts-back-federal-regulatory-authority-over-wetlands
In Sackett v. EPA, the Supreme Court Cuts Back Federal Regulatory ...

'Supreme Court In Sackett v. EPA, the Supreme Court Cuts Back Federal Regulatory Authority Over Wetlands The Clean Water Act decision was a unanimous win for the Sacketts.'

If Chuckles Schumer doesn't like the existing law, guess what, he's a lawmaker. He can introduce the law he wants and watch it get voted down!

I think we are all starting to understand why too many Dems hate Americans living under laws formed by their elected representatives, because our elected representatives will not pass the laws that Dems want to impose. It must really suck for them that they can't boss around all the free people that they want to boss around.

You know what? The US CONSTITUTION gives the federal government jurisdiction over NAVIGABLE WATER and the wet spot in the Sacketts back yard wasn't a country mile from any NAVIGABLE WATER.

'The Act applies to "navigable waters," which had a well-established meaning at the time of the CWA's enactment. The CWA's use of "waters" encompasses "only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water' forming geographical features' that are described in ordinary parlance as 'streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.'"'

You know what the wet spot in the back of Sacketts yard wasn't? It wasn't a navigable stream, ocean, river or a lake.

'federal regulatory authority over navigable waters was traditionally constrained by the scope of the federal Commerce Power, and should be understood in the terms embraced by the Supreme Court in The Daniel Ball .'

https://famguardian.org › Publications › PropertyRights › comnavft.html
Commerce Clause: Navigabile in Fact, The Daniel Ball
In The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557, 563, the Court said: 'Those rivers must be regarded as public navigable rivers in law which are navigable in fact.'

What a concept. The Court determined that the way you can tell if water is navigable is.... wait for it,,, if you can navigate them. You Lefties are such fans of precedent, except when you aren't.

And I know how much you all like to call yourself 'liberals' but, taking another's land because they have a seasonal puddle on the property under the pretense that it's navigable water, is illiberal, not liberal. Liberal has to do with liberty, and what you back is smashed mouthed authoritarianism, exactly what we formed our Liberal Constitutional Democracy to oppose.

RFK offers you a tremendous choice to find your way back to Freedom and Liberty, and to do so, without further delay.