Supreme Court Outrages Republicans With Split Decision Ruling

No need to push any further! I complimented you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Then why a new law?

 

What new law?

 

Yup. 95% of them get re elected. What is their worry?

 

Like I said previously, if they were held accountable for the regulations that agencies set then those numbers would be lower.

 

Why? What evidence do you have that the public holds congress creatures accountable for anything? They constantly make other terrible decisions. It's a creature's best skill.

 

It does: but those are minimum standards, not maximum ones. Look at you: the guy who believes in small government, who thinks that limited government should be able to force feed the people of every state, even if the residents of those states don't want certain of those foods, eaten elsewhere.

Well, it's not like anyone expects consistency from a Republican, anymore.

 

Prices are off the hook, but that is ridiculous, to expect to not be able to afford ham, ever again. First of all, there are the smaller, canned hams which, granted, pale in comparison to the spiral sliced, glazed ham, I imagine you are talking about; but they are still ham. And some are foreign (like Polish or Danish, for example) so would have no need have their price affected by any of our domestic rules (though I know, when in Rome). Lastly, you needen't eat an entire ham: you could just get a ham steak, or deli sliced ham, or ground pork. Also, don't tell me that you can't find any pork chops, for less than $10/lb. There are, in addition, cheaper cuts. But, because larger quantities are typically cheaper by the pound, and I still think I could get deli ham for less than $10/lb., I have a feeling the price you quoted, had more to do with that particular product, and that you are being overly dramatic, in making out that you will never be able to afford the taste of ham, again.


Btw, if I read through your linked article, does it go into the dissenting arguments, by the interesting combination of Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown- Jackson?

 

Because despite the fact that many of our Pols do seem to keep their jobs for life, there are those that don't.

 

Sorry I was not clear enough on the ham, I was mainly thinking of breakfast ham (it was the breakfast ham that cost $56) and Christmas/Thanksgiving ham. Yes, I can afford sandwich ham.

As for your question, sorry, don't remember about it going into dissenting arguments. Been a few days since I read it and I have a bad case of CRS.

 

I'm for small government, not no government.

 

And you think rubber stamping FDA regulations is going to change that? The word naive comes to mind, here.

 

FDA regulations aren't even rubber stamped right now. They're just put out.

 

I don't agree, compelling that states have to allow in all foods, that the federal government deems acceptable, is small government; but let's look at it, then, from the other side. I assume you support the idea of States' Rights: of greater independence, within the states, to make their own decisions. But you don't think these rights should even allow a state to regulate its own food supply? That does not seem consistent, with a pro States' Rights philosophy.

 

Yes
You want congress to rubber stamp the changes. You think this will cause voters to hold them accountable. That's naive.

 

Congress won't be able to rubber stamp changes. Why do you think that could happen?

 

Uh, what? You want Nancy Pelosi deciding what regulations need to be met when processing meat? Lmao. Congress gave that job to the FDA. Over 100 years ago. If Congress needs to approve FDA changes, they will send to congress who will approve said changes.

 

It’s California, true blue Democratic state. I would think they would welcome big government intrusion!

 

Even Pelosi is better than some faceless bureaucrat that is accountable to no one.

 

And the one-liners, just keep on coming.


So, IOW, you have no argument, as to why this wasn't a case, with "big government" as the losing litigant? And you have no problem, backing the big government side, yet calling yourself a small government, States' Rights advocate?

It seems, then, you are in no position to criticize California-- or anyone, for that matter-- on the grounds of not sticking to one's principles.

 

They are accountable to Congress. Congress doesn't like doing its' job. It's abdicated most of its responsibilities to the Exec. NOBODY is holding them accountable. Having them take over the day to day operations of regulatory agencies is dumb.

You are basing your opinion on the "fact" that Congress does its' job. It doesn't. They don't. They let Presidents take us to war, as long as its' called a police action. They allow the Exec too much power to create law, via Exec order. They haven't had a balanced budget in forever. The Senate has turned Judicial approval into a partisan hammer. The list goes on and on and on and on. NOBODY holds them accountable.

I'd like some of what you smoke. It's clearly blue-pill flavor.