Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has set his sights on eliminating the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday announced which cases it would consider next and which it wouldn’t. Among those the court rejected was a case that challenged the authority of OSHA, which sets and enforces standards for health and safety in the workplace.
And Thomas, widely considered to be the most conservative justice on the already mostly conservative court, wasn’t happy.
In a dissent, he explained why he believed the high court should’ve taken the case: OSHA’s power, he argues, is unconstitutional.
Oh great. An old man who simply is getting rid of protections for average people because all he hears is how it hurts the profit margins of his good friends the uber wealthy.
We really are just heading to a split society of no class mobility and no real consideration of the poor from the rich.
And yet they wonder why the country is collapsing and people don’t really want to have kids anymore.
Clarence Thomas is unconstitutional. By his own originalist logic, he is only 3/5 of a human and should not be married to a white woman.
Fuck Clarence Thomas.
A puppet
They won’t stop. By 2025 they will reinstate the crime of heresy. Mark my words.
is unconstitutional
At this point I’m seeing a pattern. Any time someone good has to be removed so that pure evil shit can take it’s place, the argument almost always includes at least “is unconstitutional”
Guys, GUYS! Your constitution… Sucks. Same as your founding fathers. The US constitution is a document that was cool a few hundred years ago, but it is heavily outdated and at this point an actual new one really wouldn’t be a bad idea. Yeah yeah, the original document doesn’t suck, at least not in historic context, and definitely should be kept in a museum but stop effin quoting the damn thing as it it were Gods personao commandments. Get a new constitution for the 21st century.
Your founding fathers were okay, of course, but stop treating them as if they were infallible gods. They weren’t. Im sure that for their time they were super smart and their ideas revolutionary, but that was centuries ago and a lot of their ideas no longer fly.
The right to bear arms (insert joke about bear arms) was written when an arm was a musket, that would take (a) minute(s) to load a single bullet that then could barely hit a target and had the penetration power of my penis. Now we have AR15’s for children who can murder double digits other children through multiple walls within double digit seconds and basically half the country thinks this is perfectly fine and quotes that two hundred year old line as the infallible reason why.
It’s okay. Your constitution WAS great hundreds of years ago and yeah, your founding fathers WERE awesome. They both live two hundred years away from the situation we face today. The world changed. The US changed. Science changed. Everything changed and got updated. Your constitution got a few updates but at this point could use a rewrite. You know, something healthy to start over fresh.
I mean, the big philosophical divide between liberal and conservative judges is usually whether or not the constitution is a “living” document. That is, whether it can be interpreted through a modern lens, or if laws must be strictly limited by what is exactly written in the document.
I would argue that it’s easily the former, since, one, they explicitly allow amendments to the Constitution, and, two, there is a session of the Bill of Rights where they basically say, “we can’t possibly list all the rights that people are entitled to. This list is by no means comprehensive, and just because something isn’t in here, it doesn’t mean we’ve left it out on purpose.”
I agree that the constitution is very flawed, and that we would probably be better off without it, but one thing they were very clear on: no kings. The Trump immunity ruling was not only legal nonsense, it was clearly not an originalist interpretation (what the conservatives claim to be.)
When you take into account all of the rulings that this current court has made, it’s quite clear that they just start with the conclusion that they want, and reason backwards to get the justification. Once you’re at that point, I’m not sure that it really matters what your legal system is based on; they’re just doing make-em-ups anyway.
The conservatives agree with you and want to call for a new constitutional convention so that they have an opportunity to work in the project 2025 agenda directly into a new draft of the Constitution.
An important part of controlling state legislatures is to be able to get enough states to first call for the constitutional convention and then to control it. That’s the most effective route to ensuring that the white, Christian, business first agenda is permanently enforced
Tons of the reasons given for why congress can do things don’t really make sense, like civil rights amendments were defended with the reasoning that congress can regulate interstate commerce, and segregation affects interstate commerce. IMO that doesn’t make sense, but everyone goes along with it because these regulations are obviously good. If we had a good constitution, we wouldn’t need to make these weird excuses to do things that are clearly necessary for the public wellbeing, but unfortunately we don’t, so we have to make do and have any decision we make be randomly struck down by the courts when they decide they don’t like it anymore.
Working in the chemical industry, this statement is horrifying.
Take a look for yourself:
https://m.youtube.com/user/USCSB
A fucking judge who sits on his ass all day, “interpreting” the constitution like he’s some fucking oracle, wouldn’t even begin to understand.
I had no idea of this entity, but I work with enough similarly, highly nuanced public professionals that I recognize that the rapid and blind “immediately destroy all gubberment” approach will have widespread oh-holy-fuck consequenes if not just for the extensive brain vacuum potentially left in the wake of this type of growing mentality. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and perspective.
If they believe congress shouldn’t have the authority to delegate authority so broad then the way fix isn’t to eliminate the delegation but to require that congress reviews the regulatory agencies to see if they’re acting as according to their intent (yes there’s risk of abuse for this too, like endless micromanaging, etc, this is just to defuse the constitutionality argument)
Just read a bunch of audit results and discuss relevant court cases involving the varies agencies in front of congress and let them rubberstamp it
