Waayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy OT, but who says the whole world is moving to toward fascism?
“If there was a general election today, the conservative party would consist of three people in Scotland” - Matt Chorley
“If it were, Labour would be on course for a 492-seat majority.” - Alexander Armstrong
Latest UK poll:
.
I agree, I was just being a bit cheeky.
So who wants to limit what constitutes a wetland? Or is someone trying make “drain the swamp” a literal action?
And from the Pussy-Grabber Pettiness Department:
.
the spirit of the Open Door Law
The Republican Party seems to have problems with that “spirit of” stuff. The spirit of the law, the spirit of competition, the spirit of the game, the spirit of any freedom, every one of which carries a responsibility, one’s bond to one’s community.
It would seem to me that it is the board’s function to set policy, and the executive staff’s function to implement it.
And i would think appealing to the US Supreme Court is a pretty big piece of policy. Something stinks about this.
LONDON — For Prime Minister Liz Truss, it was a chance to steady the waters after days of turmoil in the financial markets over her new fiscal plan: eight rapid-fire interviews with local BBC radio stations from Leeds to Nottingham.
By the time Ms. Truss signed off from the last one on Thursday morning, her political woes had multiplied, leaving her new government in a state of disarray almost without precedent in recent British politics.
What, ME worry???
.
You mean like this kind of spirit?
Tongue in cheek understood and appreciated. As to who wants to limit what constitute a wetland - well, who else?
In all seriousness, the case gives SCOTUS an opportunity to revisit its earlier decision in Rapanos v US (2006) which, without going into exhaustive detail, iterated the “significant nexus” test for determining whether wetlands could be “navigable waters” for jurisdictional purposes. In a sense, the decision went 4-1-4 (what constitutes the “plurality” opinion was of Scalia’s authorship and included a stab at the Corps of Engineers as exercising the discretion of “an enlightened despot”), and the “1” was authored by Justice Kennedy, also no longer on the bench. So, sixteen years later, it’s a different court; that four Justices agreed to grant cert doesn’t bode well.
Pretty sure the board instructed the staff behind closed doors to take this action. Very unusual for the staff of a nonprofit to do some dramatic, controversial thing absent that.
Plus, I would expect the board would be making some kind of stink if they were out of the loop or the staff did it against their will. The only sort of way they wouldn’t be complicit while remaining silent was if they didn’t want to publicly acknowledge how incompetent they are by making a stink. But that’s hardly better.
I don’t know why the board felt that way, what advantage the Supremes’ involvement would confer on them, but my experience with board-staff interaction strongly suggests they wanted it to happen and wanted the decision made and action taken in the shadows. Something isn’t kosher here, that’s goddamned obvious.
What’s the frequency?
Yes, i don’t see anyone willing to stick their neck out. They’re stonewalling.
Tomorrow’s London Times
This prime minister must be dispatched now
Check SCOTUSblog; they likely will have a live summary.
Does the legislation that created HHC specifically allow the board to delegate authority? If not, I can’t see how the Court can accept an executive agency asserting power the legislature didn’t expressly grant it.
The debate between Beto and Abbott is pretty good. Texas Tribune has the link. It’s been going on since 7:00
Silly rabbit, intellectual consistency is for kids!
No, Spirit singing “Fresh Garbage “. I’d set a link but I’m a Luddite.
