Claim: Judge Kavanaugh’s Adherence to Rule of Law Will Impede Climate Action

Brett Kavanaugh
Judge Brett Kavanaugh. By U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit –, Public Domain, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Greens are worried Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court will impede their efforts to stretch Congressional mandates beyond their original intent.

What Brett Kavanaugh on Supreme Court Could Mean for Climate Regulations

Trump’s second Supreme Court nominee has a history of opposing regulations Congress didn’t explicitly authorize. That could be a problem for greenhouse gas policies.

OCT 6, 2018

In his dozen years on the federal appeals court that hears the most disputes over government regulatory power, Judge Brett Kavanaugh compiled an extensive record of skepticism toward the government’s powers to act on climate change.

In particular, while Kavanaugh has repeatedly voiced the belief that global warming is a serious problem, he challenged the argument that Congress has given the Environmental Protection Agency authority to do something about it.

Judge Kavanaugh isn’t anti-environmental, but he tends to be anti-agency,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. “He’s often struck down regulation that he didn’t think Congress had authorized explicitly enough. He reads statutory authority very narrowly and that is a major concern for things like the Clean Power Plan,” President Barack Obama’s signature climate initiative.

Kavanaugh articulated his narrow reading of the law during oral arguments in September 2016 on the Clean Power Plan. Kavanaugh said the Clean Air Act was “a thin statute” to support the rule, likening the program for reining in carbon emissions from electric power plants to President George W. Bush’s post-9/11 move to detain a suspected enemy combatant without due process—an effort that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional.

“War is not a blank check,” Kavanaugh said. “Global warming is not a blank check, either, for the president.”

Read more:

What a disaster for the green movement. How will activists regulators ever achieve anything, if they have to keep asking Congress to sanction their efforts?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 6, 2018 7:14 pm

I’ve searched and searched … but cannot find the Article in the Constitution which cedes regulatory powers to a Bureau of unelected bureaucrats … Deep state socialist embeds … using the cover of “the environment” … to cripple industrial America.

John Tillman
Reply to  Kenji
October 6, 2018 7:20 pm


Much mischief has been worked under bogus interpretations of the Commerce Clause.

The administrative state fears that its swamp will be drained by originalist justices.

Today’s swamp creatures may soon go the way of Paleozoic swamp sharks:

comment image

Reply to  John Tillman
October 6, 2018 8:04 pm


Reply to  John Tillman
October 6, 2018 8:45 pm

That us total BS about the commerce clause. There is hardly any commerce today that is intrastate. This is not the 1790’s. Almost all commerce today is global and not even interstate. That is such legal fiction in today’s world. A narrow reading of the commerce clause primarily serves to protect large multinational corporations from responsibility.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  davidgmillsatty
October 6, 2018 9:54 pm

Only if you use the demented current standard that everything affects interstate commerce, even growing food to be consumed at home.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  davidgmillsatty
October 7, 2018 4:19 am

The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3).

The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

18th Century definition of “commerce”, to wit:

commerce – 1. the activity of buying and selling, especially on a large scale.

20th and 1st Century definition of “commerce”, to wit:

Just about anything that the ruling majority in Congress ……. or the majority of the US Supreme Court Justices ….. either think, believe, want ….. or are coerced, bribed or intimated ….. to claim that it means.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
October 7, 2018 11:04 am

Those are not mutually exclusive in the age of the internet, when virtually everything we buy or sell has some component of it that is not made or produced within the state, or every item sold within the state.

Nearly every product made now is made outside the US or if it is assembled here it has components made outside the US. And chances are good that if it is made in the US it was made in another state. And then chances are good that the product is sold outside the state,

Even services rely on using products made outside the state or outside the country. Who operates a business without a computer or a cell phone, both of which are likely to be made out of the country.

Use some common sense.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
October 7, 2018 2:03 pm

@ davidgmillsatty October 7, 2018 at 11:04 am (which appears below this, right?)

Thank you for making their point for them. You have just cited and recited the position taken by those amongst the Ruling Class who believe that they have justification to control everything just by invoking the Commerce Clause. As found in other writings of the Founding Fathers, those who wrote the Constitution, none of the Constitution was meant to be used that way. And it was precisely because the Founding Fathers expected all their fellow citizens to use some common sense when engaging in business, or even in personal dealings (at that time, the two were inseparable, almost no one worked for only a wage without having some business on the side, and most engaged in numerous business ventures and trades).

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
October 7, 2018 5:05 pm

So you believe in having a static Constitution? That law should be applied as if it was still 1790? I agree with you that the ruling class has bought our government, hook, line and sinker. But is that the law’s fault? But the ruling class also owns all of the state governments as well, don’t forget that.

I think there is a lot legislators could do to protect small business that is not done, but the ruling class does not care about small business or individuals.

The data has been clear for some time that what 65% of America wants the government to do never gets done and about 80% of what the top 10% wants the government to do gets done.

Short of a revolution that is not going to change, I am afraid.

And the Constitution has nothing to do with the fact that people get put in office in all types and levels of government who are beholding to the royal class.

John Tillman
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
October 7, 2018 5:32 pm

davidgmillsatty October 7, 2018 at 5:05 pm

Yes, of course the Constitution should be “static”, or else it’s not law but meaningless gibberish which clever attorneys can twist to signify whatever they want.

The only proper way to make it less static is to amend it.

My comments apply to the interstate commerce clause, not the foreign or Indian tribe aspects of the clause.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
October 7, 2018 6:35 pm

The opposite of having a static constitution is having no constitution, which is the world liberals prefer.
If you don’t like the constitution, change it, don’t ignore it. Down that path lies the tyranny that liberals crave.

Bill Marsh
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
October 8, 2018 3:05 am

“The only proper way to make it less static is to amend it.”

Which is precisely why they made it so difficult to amend it. A ‘Super majority’ has to want the change for it to be made.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
October 8, 2018 4:09 am

davidgmillsatty – October 7, 2018 at 11:04 am

Those are not mutually exclusive in the age of the internet, when virtually everything we buy or sell has some component of it that is not made or produced within the state, or every item sold within the state.

You really don’t have a clue, DO YOU, ….. davidgmillsatty, ….. as to why the “founding fathers” thought it was necessary to include the Commerce Clause in the United States Constitution?

“DUH”, do you really think that the “founding fathers” used a magic crystal ball to foresee all the different types of “commerce” that you mentioned in you above post? Hell “NO” they didn’t. The “magic” of ….. airplanes and internet commerce ….. would have simply been mind-boggling.

The intent of The Commerce Clause was to “insure” that the Federal Government (Congress) retained the right to control the transfer or movement of “goods and services” with or between foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

Maintain control of the transfer or movement of “goods and services”, ….. and NOT to maintain control of the type, color, size, taste, quantity, etc., of said “goods and services” that may, might or be transferred, transported or moved, ….. either “physically” or ”electrically”, ….. between the aforenoted entities.

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
October 7, 2018 6:04 am

As Samuel C Cogar points out, the Commerce Clause applies to foreign powers, states and indian tribes. It most specifically does not say *And The People*.

So unless you are a foreign power, a state, or an indian tribe, the Commerce Clause does not apply to you. The federal government has no authority to regulate you.
(Reference: Tenth Amendment for clarification)

{Some people hate that. The Constitution says certain very specific things, and does *not* say certain very specific other things.}

davidgmill, satty

What is a satty?

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
October 7, 2018 7:12 am

Not only is the Commerce Clause still important, it’s a stumbling block for central-government globalists. Here’s one example why. There re many others.

When America’s environmental protection agency (EPA) first tried to grab control of America’s waters using the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision

against them after they attempted to cite the Migratory Bird Rule as authority for stopping a consortium of Chicago municipalities from using an abandoned sand and gravel pit for a solid waste disposal site; invoking the Commerce Clause—the only power given Congress by the founders with which to overrule state law.

EPA lawyers argued that migratory birds were “interstate commerce” generating revenue “. . . of very nearly the first magnitude” and that “. . . that millions of people spent over a billion dollars annually on recreational pursuits relating to migratory birds, and that the ducks needed the water that had seeped into the gravel pits. . .”

This maneuver is called the Commerce Clause gambit that the EPA attempts to use when trying to override state sovereignty and law.

The Supreme Court didn’t buy it, saying: “…we find nothing approaching a clear statement from Congress it intended the (sic Clean Water Act) to reach an abandoned sand and gravel pit…to claim federal jurisdiction over ponds and mud flats falling within the “Migratory Bird Rule” would result in significant impingement of the state’s traditional and primary power over land and water use.”

The Second EPA Attempt to Take Over the Waters of America came when they tried skirting the “navigational” water definition in America’s Clean Water Act (as defined by in Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court) in Rapanos v United States

Failing in Congress and in the Courts, the EPA’s and then-president Obama’s handlers, seeing their proposals had no legality, tried to use a presidential executive order (EO) to skirt the Commerce Clause—an unlawful and unconstitutional power and a further attempt to erode the right to private property in America— something right out of a rogue king’s, war lord’s, dictator’s, despot’s or Bolshevik’s playbook.

Whatever we say, goes.

Absent the right to own property and the checks and balances deliberately written into America’s Constitution and its case law, you’re left with an “ism”—fascism, socialism, communism—and a central control system for everything, including land and water, that benefits only a handful of psychopathic financial criminals at the top.

Russian communists knew the importance of controlling the land and the individuals on it, and what private (right to own) property would do to their failed, centralized, attempt at governing. That’s why fist-fights between hardline communists and right-to-own Russian property advocates broke out when this subject came up in Russia’s Duma during the lead-up to, and following, the so-called fall of Russian communism. An excellent summary of this fight over the right to own private property in Russia is a 2001 article by Leon Aron, “Land Privatization”

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
October 7, 2018 7:42 am

I certainly hope the ‘atty’ at the end of your name does not mean ‘attorney’. If so, you were poorly taught, or failed to learn, the most significant Supreme Court ruling concerning the Commerce clause of the Constitution, Wickard v. Filburn.

For those not familiar with this case, I strongly urge that you google it. Anyone believing in freedom would argue that it was a grossly wrong decision, giving government far too much authority.

Briefly the case was this: a farmer grew wheat. He stayed within the government dictat of how much wheat he could grow for commercial purposes. However, he also grew some additional wheat which he had ground explicitly for home consumption.

The government argued that by growing his own wheat, he reduced the demand for commercially grown wheat, putting downward pressure its price. That being the case, the government could include the extra wheat under the Commerce clause and limit how much he could grow. Therefore, they had a right to include the additional wheat he grew in the overall government limitations.

The government won. Few people recognize that the government has the right to tell you what and how much you can grow in your own home garden, but that is what this ruling says. Logic says this can be extended to any pursuit, i.e., anything you do for yourself, for your own consumption, that results in your not buying something commercially, can be regulated by the federal government under the Commerce clause.

Do you agree with that Court’s expansion of the Commerce clause, Davidg?

Reply to  Jtom
October 7, 2018 9:38 am

“Few people recognize that the government has the right to tell you what and how much you can grow in your own home garden, but that is what this ruling says.”

Exactly how many times has this been enforced since the end of the Great Depression?

Reply to  Jtom
October 7, 2018 9:50 am

Yes it does mean I am an attorney. For forty years and you guys are clueless. Same old BS. It is never worth an attorneys’ time to post here. I have read thousands and thousands of cases involving constitutional questions and it is pointless to discuss this. Anybody can get on google and find a case somewhere that says something to support their position.

And yes I agree with an expansion of the commerce clause because the reality of the world is that commerce is very seldom intrastate any more. This is not 1790. Corporations and even small family businesses do business all over the country and sometimes all over the world. The age of the internet has made that extremely easy to do. And many states with small populations have no financial means to regulate large multinational corporations.

Reply to  Jtom
October 7, 2018 10:10 am

Fascinating. In Chris’s world, the fact that a power hasn’t been abused yet, proves that there is nothing to worry about.

Reply to  Jtom
October 7, 2018 10:11 am

And as always, David applies the I’m an expert, your an idiot. Therefore I am never wrong line of liberal thinking.

John Tillman
Reply to  Jtom
October 7, 2018 5:46 pm


The baleful effect of Wickard has hampered the US economy and personal liberty ever since 1942.

There is now no distinction between “interstate” and “intrastate” commerce to place any limits on Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause to micromanage economic life.

In the 70 years between Wickard and NFIB v. Sebelius in 2012, the Supreme Court found only two narrow laws to lie beyond Congress’ constitutionally enumerated powers.

If you like a central regime with essentially unlimited powers, then you’ll love Wickard. The Framers sought to limit the power of the new federal government they created, not to give it carte blanche to reach down into every garden plot.

Reply to  Jtom
October 7, 2018 8:22 pm

David: you need a refund on your degree. You failed a basic Con Law Moot court. Your response was solely insult and opinion, no foundation in law and not pertinent to the question. The question put to you was, do you agree with the Wickard v. Filburn decision?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Jtom
October 8, 2018 4:27 am

davidgmillsatty – October 7, 2018 at 9:50 am

And yes I agree with an expansion of the commerce clause because the reality of the world is that commerce is very seldom intrastate any more.

And just why in ell do you think there is a need of “an expansion of the commerce clause”?

Are you an avowed socialist, communist, bleeding-heart liberal or tree-hugging environmentalist?

Nick Schroeder, BSME,
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
October 8, 2018 6:55 am

The commerce cause was used to justify OSHA.
The roofers at my house aren’t engaged in interstate commerce.

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
October 7, 2018 10:07 am

Wow David, can you be any more paranoid?

Reply to  MarkW
October 7, 2018 11:43 am

The question should also be asked of David if he actually believes all attorneys and constitutional scholars agree with him.
I THINK NOT, given the debate over the issue has only been going on for some time (only about as long as the country is old), I call bullshit on his deluded certainty, professional expert or not.

I have little respect for ‘legal professionals’ as a thoughtful group these days, considering many such fine learned attorneys tried blatantly to convince congress ‘presumption of innocence’, ‘due process’, and ‘preponderance of evidence’ were merely passe when held up against incredibly emotional, but utterly uncorroborated accusations.

Reply to  MarkW
October 7, 2018 3:01 pm

For attorneys like David, once the supreme court has spoken on a subject, it’s closed. No more debate is permitted.
Unless they happen to disagree with the ruling, in which case they will keep bringing cases until the supreme court gets it right.

John Tillman
Reply to  davidgmillsatty
October 7, 2018 5:22 pm


You seem not to be familiar with the cancerous case law which has metastasized around the Commerce Clause.

The Constitutional Revolution of 1937 gave the federal government effectively unlimited powers to intervene in the US economy. The warped interpretations involved caused the Constitution to be mutated into the exact opposite of what the Framers intended.

If five unelected officials can legislated for 320 million people, under the nefarious doctrine that the law is whatever judges say it is, then we no longer have a government of law but of men and women.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  John Tillman
October 8, 2018 6:58 am

If five unelected officials can legislated for 320 million people, under the nefarious doctrine that the law is whatever judges say it is, then we no longer have a government of law but of men and women.

John Tillman, as of lately, ……. even elected Judges have been getting by with “Legislating from the Bench” by negating Legislation duly passed into Law by elected politicians, ….. which means said Judges are acting like Dictators by forcing the POTUS, members of Congress and 320+ million people to do whatever they are told to do or not do.

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
October 7, 2018 9:29 pm

Electricity markets are interstate. Watch California crazies try to separate green electrons from black electrons in an effort of energy segregation and tax the dark and evil energies. Watch CAFE standards from kalifornia force EVs and mini boxes on to the roads. We need a good dust off of the Commece clause just to keep Jerries kids in line.

Reply to  John Tillman
October 7, 2018 2:36 pm

“Much mischief has been worked under bogus interpretations of the Commerce Clause.

The administrative state fears that its swamp will be drained by originalist justices.”

This true. The Founders deemed the Commerce Clause necessary to stop states from taxing or other wise harassing interstate shipments*. It’s use to regulate content, an obscene action, is a 20th century perversion of the Constitution.

*See Federalist 42

Reply to  John Tillman
October 10, 2018 6:24 am

The Interstate Commerce Clause is one of the most widely misunderstood parts of the Constitution. It gives the federal government authority to regulate commerce between the states to ensure fairness and equality in trade. In other words, this empowers the federal government to prevent or correct trade practices that favor commerce between some states but not others. For example, Georgia can’t sell peaches to a few preferred states but not others; or California can’t sell avocados to Nevada for $1 per pound while selling to New Mexico at $10 per pound without good commercial reason. This meaning is far different from the progressive interpretation which simply authorizes the federal government to regulate anything having to do with interstate commerce – even if it has nothing to do with interstate trade fairness. This is one of the many grotesque overreaches of federal authority permitted by wrong-minded progressive interpretations of the Constitution. Time to fix them. Let’s hope Kavanaugh is the tip of this spear.

Reply to  andy
October 10, 2018 6:42 am

Yep. In its original meaning, “regulate” meant to make regular.

Reply to  Kenji
October 6, 2018 8:00 pm

The founding fathers, the guys who wrote the constitution, ridiculed the notion that the commerce clause was intended to justify wide powers for the federal government.
In their words, if the commerce clause could be used as widely as many pro-government types wanted to, then that would mean that the rest of the constitution was meaningless.

spalding craft
Reply to  MarkW
October 7, 2018 9:17 am

Not really. The constitution says nothing about the day to day conduct of the government, and the need to have specific rules to deal with commerce in a growing country. If we’re going to have regulatory laws (does anyone challenge the need for a national law like the Clean Air Act?), then either Congress itself or government agencies have to specify rules to carry out Congress’ intent.

So either you allow (through the courts) Congress to delegate certain powers to agencies, a logical result, or you can amend the Constitution to allow for it. The Courts have reasoned that the sketchiness of the Constitution contemplated filling in the gaps without having to amend it – a very cumberson and difficult procedure.

The problem, of course, is that the agencies have grown far beyond anyone’s vision, and unfortunately, no one has had the gumption to stop it. Trump has said and thought he had the gumption, so we’ll see how successful that will be.

Reply to  MarkW
October 7, 2018 10:13 am

If the constitution says nothing about it, then by definition the government doesn’t have the power to do it.
If you think the government needs a new power, then amend the constitution to give the government the power. If the government can declare new power unto itself just because a majority in government believes the government needs that power, then you are declaring that there are no limits to government power.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  MarkW
October 8, 2018 7:02 am

MarkW, …. right you are, ….. well stated.

Jim G.
Reply to  Kenji
October 6, 2018 10:21 pm

They get around it [the Constitution] by approving the Code of Federal Regulations every year.

Agencies are given authority by Congress via acts to regulate and enforce certain areas of life.
The agencies issue an NPRM when they are going to create a new “rule”.
After the comment period and approval, the NPRM is entered in to the Federal Register.
If Congress does nothing, the law goes in to effect 30 to 60 days after its entry.
(Some rules may go in to effect immediately.) The waiting period is to give Congress time for review.
Granted, reading bills is not a strong suit of our Congress.
Congress must act (via a bill), and the President must sign the bill, in order to stop the rule from going in to effect.

Here’s a good link to a pdf document from Federal that describes the process. Link goes to immediate download.

Personally I like the idea that to add one new law, they must remove two or three.

Reply to  Jim G.
October 7, 2018 5:12 am

There is a standing Supreme Court precedent known simply as “Chevron” that has served to vastly amplify the power of the Bureacracy. To put it in layman’s terms, it holds that unless a challenger can provide overwhelming and clear evidence that an agency’s policy is in error, then the agency’s decisions should never be questioned by the courts. Since evidence of that nature is almost impossible to provide on big sweeping policy decisions, it has meant that Federal Agencies have had carte blanche to do whatever they want under this standard.

Kavanaugh is on record as saying that “Chevron” should be overturned. That’s one of the big reasons so many in DC hate him so much, hated him enough to concoct a conspiracy of lies about him.

Reply to  wws
October 7, 2018 6:21 am

hated him enough to concoct a conspiracy of lies about him.

Yes, but as I heard mentioned, if GOD would’ve been nominated, there would have been the same efforts to derail.

Now Karl Marx would be a different story…..

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  wws
October 7, 2018 7:19 am

It is actually quite funny that the environmental radicals are upset about the appointment of a highly qualified justice who follows the rule of law. The political processes that led to this outcome were almost certainly due to actions taken by radical environmentalists and others who wanted to change the world based on Marxist/socialist dogma without the consent of democracy. Voters could smell the stench of autocratic socialist rule “1984 style” from miles away. Thus the event they now decry is one they caused through their own actions. Democratic systems right themselves. That’s why democracy is so valuable to those who want a good life and so dangerous to those who want to take that good life away.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
October 8, 2018 7:06 am

and so dangerous to those who want to take that good life away” ……. from everyone except themselves.

Reply to  Kenji
October 7, 2018 6:13 am

IMHO the worst aspect of the EU is that it is actually controlled by an unelected bureaucracy in a building in Brussels. The Democrats in the US appear to be trying to emulate this failed program.

Reply to  Kenji
October 7, 2018 10:12 am

Kenji, I fear you prevaricate. At least mislead. It’s a three page document, plus some amendments. “search and search” is overstatement. Even a simpleton (excluding Congress and the Courts) could quickly ascertain that the Constitution cedes no regulatory power to unelected bureaucrats.
And you, sir, are clearly no simpleton.

Sam Pyeatte
Reply to  Kenji
October 7, 2018 12:41 pm

Cut the unelected bureaucrats off at the knees. They have abused their unearned power way too long.

Reply to  Kenji
October 7, 2018 9:13 pm

The persecution of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has many parallels to the global warming scam: The leaders of the conspiracy invent a BIG LIE, and then they repeat it often enough that their idiot minions pick it up and chant it ad nauseum. This was no coincidence, since both these scams were creations of the extreme left and both are false, deceitful and reprehensible.

About 4% of humanity are considered sociopaths, who will lie about anything for personal gain. Sociopathy is the oldest identified form of mental illness, and can be defined as “absence of conscience”.

Sociopathy includes women as well as men. The percentages are greater among certain professions like lawyers, who often graduate to become politicians.

Brett Kavanaugh was victimized by these same extremists, using the same tactics that are used by sociopathic women and their lawyers in fractious divorces – this is called the “Silver Bullet” scam in divorce, and it has been extended into the political arena – to ruin a good man’s reputation with false accusations of violence or impropriety.

False accusations of physical assault and sexual assault are now a routine part of fractious divorces, and are concocted by sociopathic women and corrupt lawyers for financial gain and/or revenge – it’s been named the “Silver Bullet” scam for at least 20 years, and it routinely involves the abduction and abuse of children – essentially the kidnapping of children for ransom.

The “believe the woman” meme is routinely used by extremists to support the Silver Bullet scam, and they are thus complicit in this child abuse. It used to be that child abduction and child abuse for extortion was a capital offence – but now it is just a routine part of the Law Business.

The Silver Bullet scam has been going on for decades, and “believe the woman” is a big part of it. People who repeat this “believe the woman” meme are actually complicit in child abduction, child abuse and extortion – and few crimes are more vile.

Anyone who doubts that this scam exists is extremely naive or is deliberately lying – every divorce lawyer knows about the Silver Bullet scam.


The “silver bullet” technique involves a carefully contrived, and set up, false accusation of Domestic abuse, or, when possible, the provocation of real incident of Domestic abuse.

Those who perpetrate this scam will make the charge of Domestic abuse, no matter what their victim does, or fails to do.

In many cases they close joint bank accounts, and make doctors appointments, BEFORE they create the “incident”. It happens hundreds of times every day.

October 7, 2018 10:17 pm

Here is how modern politics works:

The far-left is winning, especially in the developing world, where over 100 countries are pseudo-Marxist dictatorships, based on their leftist phony rhetoric, but are actually just military dictatorships, run for the ruling elite and their armed thugs – see Zimbabwe and Venezuela… and North Korea, and many more..

The left gains political power by promising imbeciles lots of free stuff. Then they destroy the economy, create widespread poverty and live like kings atop a ruined state – because you can’t be kings without lots of peasants.

It is really no different in the developed world. Get elected by lazy greedy imbeciles, destroy the economy with fake green energy and other crazy policies, and live like kings on top of a ruined economy, looking down on all the peasants.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Kenji
October 9, 2018 11:42 am

Kenji, your comment hits close to the mark, It’s not the commerce clause that’s the problem it’s the idea that any part of the government other than congress has the power to create laws. The constitution clearly vests ALL legislative powers to congress. Congress cannot constitutionally turn any of that power over to bureaucrats nor are the courts allowed to take on those powers themselves. But I suppose that’s water under the bridge.

Gilbert K.Arnold
October 6, 2018 7:17 pm

Perhaps maybe some sanity will prevail in DC. I’m not holding my breath but it could happen.

Reply to  Gilbert K.Arnold
October 7, 2018 4:00 am

I’m not sure that I’m going like some of Kavenaugh decisions but I do feel a little more optimistic for the constitution.

Reply to  Greg
October 7, 2018 7:52 am

No case will be decided by Kavanaugh. His decision will only be one if nine, with a majority being required for deciding a case. Whatever his decision is, if it is shared by at least four others, he is no more responsible for the outcome than each of the other four or more judges.

richard Patton
October 6, 2018 7:17 pm

I.E. the Constitution be Damned! Gia is too important,

Richard Patton
October 6, 2018 7:19 pm

I.E. the Constitution and rights be Damned! Gia is too important

Richard J Patton
October 6, 2018 7:22 pm

In other words the Constitution and human rights be damned! Gia is too important!

Old England
Reply to  Richard J Patton
October 7, 2018 12:44 am

Gaia ??

Reply to  Old England
October 7, 2018 10:17 am
Pop Piasa
Reply to  MarkW
October 7, 2018 12:09 pm

How ’bout Karmann Ghia?
Sure was fun…

Reply to  Pop Piasa
October 7, 2018 2:15 pm

“How ’bout Karmann Ghia?”

She was an actress, right? Maybe the silent films era? 😉

Dave Fair
Reply to  Pop Piasa
October 20, 2018 3:18 pm

1962 model. The acceleration pedal was only off the floor to brake madly.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Old England
October 7, 2018 12:10 pm

Or Gaea, if you dig Latin… 👨‍🎓

Richard J Patton
October 6, 2018 7:23 pm

Mods what is wrong? When I use Fire fox it keeps saying that I haven’t entered an e-mail address or name. This has been going on several days.

[Don’t have an immediate answer for that problem. Others have mentioned it as well, all occurring after the site was hacked several weeks ago. .mod]

Reply to  Richard J Patton
October 7, 2018 12:36 am

The site was hacked?

Reply to  Richard J Patton
October 7, 2018 4:04 am

MODS: yes this is very annoying. WUWT used to work fine on FFx . Since the recent outage I have to reenter name/email each time. Bah.

Also what ever happened to the edit function. I often only see typos once I’ve posted. Being able to correct was a lot better.

IIRC that was one of the main reasons Anthony changed the hosting.

Reply to  Greg
October 7, 2018 5:15 am

I believe the new system crashed some days ago and this temporary setup is the best Anthony has been able to put in place until he resolves the issues that caused the systemic crash.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  wws
October 7, 2018 12:22 pm

Yes, some patience with Anthony is appropriate.

Reply to  wws
October 7, 2018 12:27 pm


Oh dear, Flak!

We must be over the target.

Kevin Lohse
October 6, 2018 7:32 pm

Fancy that. a judge who will strike down bad law and send it back to Congress for redrafting whatever is the World coming to?

William Astley
Reply to  Kevin Lohse
October 7, 2018 9:53 am

The problem is the Democratic party has become the ‘big tent’ party which includes idealogical groups whose positions and policies cannot be defended using logic and reason.

The cannot be defended policies tear a country apart. They do not make sense which explains why there is no longer any thoughtful scientific discussion.

Anti-police is an example. Imagine cities without police. Sort like Walking Dead without the Zombies.

CAGW and Anti-nuclear is another. Anti-industry, Anti-chemical, and so on. Try to imagine cities without electrical power, modern industrial products. Again Walking Dead without Zombies, see large African cities.

Forced spending on green scams (wind and solar) which have fundamental engineering limitations.

Curious George
Reply to  William Astley
October 7, 2018 6:10 pm

97% of Democratic Senators believe unsupported accusations.

Reply to  Curious George
October 7, 2018 6:38 pm

The new Democrat line is that the woman must always be believed, even when she presents no evidence and her testimony contradicts that facts that are on hand.
Unless of course she’s accusing a liberal Democrat, then she’s a lying slut who would do anything for a dollar.

John Tillman
Reply to  MarkW
October 7, 2018 6:56 pm

She’s an erupted bimbo who must be suppressed with the active participation of Hillary Clinton and all her female comrades.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Kevin Lohse
October 7, 2018 12:26 pm

“Adherence to Rule of Law Will Impede Climate Action”

October 6, 2018 7:33 pm

“Claim: Judge Kavanaugh’s Adherence to Rule of Law Will Impede Climate Action”

Translation – “Judge Kavanaugh’s Adherence to Rule of Law Will Impede our Ability to Steal Money from the Taxpayers”

Reply to  philincalifornia
October 7, 2018 5:16 am

One thing the left is correct about – Kavanaugh’s confirmation is the death knell for all of the big enviro lawsuits that the left has set their hopes on. They’re all headed down the Donziger Highway now.

October 6, 2018 7:40 pm

With a healthy respect for a separation of logical domains, he adheres to The Constitution and the laws of Nature. That said, carbon credits will still be available for purchase. Caveat emptor.

Reply to  n.n
October 6, 2018 8:08 pm

Only if Congress approves a law for carbon credits, and the President signs the bill into law.

Agency created carbon credits? Bye bye!

Nor will certain states be able to force their will and carbon credits upon other states.

October 6, 2018 7:41 pm

October 6, 2018 7:49 pm

Leftists won’t be in such a big hurry to go to the court and have their judges legislate from the bench. It will be time to go to the courts and have them dismantle everything that Obama built.

michael hart
October 6, 2018 7:57 pm

“Judge Kavanaugh isn’t anti-environmental, but he tends to be anti-agency,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.

Well, Michael Hart, Director of the Michael Hart Institute for calling Out Global Warming Bullshitters at the University of Central English Nettles, says that Michael Gerrard is full of it. There. I win.

October 6, 2018 7:57 pm

A government that doesn’t have the power to do anything those who run it want.
A liberals worst nightmare.

October 6, 2018 7:58 pm

““Judge Kavanaugh isn’t anti-environmental, but he tends to be anti-agency,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. “He’s often struck down regulation that he didn’t think Congress had authorized explicitly enough. He reads statutory authority very narrowly and that is a major concern for things like the Clean Power Plan,” President Barack Obama’s signature climate initiative.”

And all of those activist judges who “interpret law to fit their activist needs.
Kiss their deranged decisions, stays and re-impowered laws goodbye!

It’s nice to have legal stability back, instead of judicial activists changing the law anytime they please.

Now, it is time to start impeaching activist judges!

October 6, 2018 8:05 pm

Judge Kavanaugh was pretty obviously the victim of an orchestrated, deliberate, political hit job. The timing of the allegations was far from coincidental. It gives one an idea of how important the Democrat party considers this appointment. I shudder to think of the back room deals that took place for both the Democrats and the Republicans.

Activist judges are poisonous to democracy. They’re what the Democrat party wants because they will twist the constitution to mean whatever suits the left. With Kavanaugh’s appointment, we have dodged a bullet.

Reply to  commieBob
October 6, 2018 8:45 pm

Everybody get use to saying Justice Kavanaugh.

Reply to  commieBob
October 6, 2018 8:54 pm

Feinstein should resign.

Reply to  Bob Hoye
October 6, 2018 10:52 pm

Senator Feinsttein is up for election this November. The only problem is, with our State’s very odd primary rules, she is running against another doctrinaire left-wing Democrat. Senator Feinstein may be the lesat bad candidate.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 6, 2018 11:31 pm

Since the California Democratic Party did not even endorse “Leaking Diane Feinstein”
And I could see the Republicans holding their noses and voting for Kevin de León, even though he is a total socialist.
Feinstein’s resignation may not be necessary.

Retired_Engineer_Jim in Florida

Duane Johnson
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 7, 2018 7:21 am

I’ve suspected that Feinstein’s last minute action in the confirmation hearing was in response to pressure from her very left-wing opponents in California.

Reply to  Duane Johnson
October 7, 2018 11:35 am

Like most politicians, she’s a politicians first, an American second… or third.

Reply to  Bob Hoye
October 7, 2018 5:51 am

Feinstein will never resign, of course.
Christine Ford lied through her teeth, and it is all on video. Feinstein was with her every step of the way.
Felony charges for Feinstein:
Felony suborning perjury, felony obstruction of justice.
Felony charges for Ford:
Felony perjury, felony obstruction of justice.

I have found in my life, when you put up with something, you tend to get more of it. Sometimes lots more. When you refuse to put up with something, you get less, and it tends to go away.

Time to play by the rules again. Not sick of winning, yet.

Reply to  TonyL
October 7, 2018 10:20 am

Like most representatives and senators, she has a better chance of dying in office than of being voted out.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  commieBob
October 7, 2018 4:05 am

I agree. Now we go on Ruth Bader Ginsberg watch. If or when the NEXT Trump nominee is made to replace her, we’ll likely see the absolute limits of Democratic partisanship and craziness. It could be even worse than this latest example. I believe the Kavanaugh confirmation fiasco has energized Republicans to vote, and I don’t believe the Senate will shift to a Democratic majority. It’s a favorable Republican year in terms of the races, and if people can get past their visceral hatred of Trump, or now have elevated their hatred of Democrats, the Republicans might even gain seats.

I urge everyone who thinks this confirmation was a horrendous fiasco by the lock-step Democrats on the Judiciary committee, to please punish this behavior by voting for Republicans. Do NOT allow Chuck Schumer, D-NY to become the Senate Majority Leader. Do NOT allow Nancy Pelosi, D-CA to become Speaker of the House. Send these folks a message, no more of this kind of crap.

I’d love to see Diane Feinstein voted out of office, because the message would be so clear. Unfortunately, California voters’ only choice is between her and an even further left Democrat, Kevin De Leon. Politically, I think De Leon would be preferable in the short run, since he would have no seniority in the Senate, ergo far less Senate influence. And depending on how far left he is, if he wins he would also find himself vulnerable to a primary challenge in the next election for that seat in 2024.

Bob Denby
Reply to  Mickey Reno
October 7, 2018 7:41 am

Good observation — Kavanaugh’s joining the court is only a single step, albeit an important one. More work to do!

Reply to  Mickey Reno
October 7, 2018 10:22 am

The liberals on the court need to examined by an independant physician each year, to prove that they haven’t died and been replaced by animitronics.

October 6, 2018 8:22 pm

Glad he noticed.

October 6, 2018 8:26 pm

Endangerment fraud must be eliminated. It’s Orwellian excess to validate a “science” simply based on policy wishes. CO2 isn’t a “pollutant”.

October 6, 2018 8:29 pm

CO2 is a “pollutant”, endangerment finding is fraud and excess government.

Reply to  Cwon14
October 6, 2018 10:18 pm

CO2 is what keeps us alive. It’s as essential to the chemistry of Life as O2. It is NOT a pollutant!

Richard Patton
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
October 6, 2018 10:22 pm

That’s what he meant. See his answer above that.

Richard of NZ
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
October 7, 2018 3:52 am

O2 is not essential to life, there are at least as many organisms that are obligate anaerobes as there are obligate aerobes. When facultative anaerobes are taken into account the total number of organisms that do not require O2 would demonstrate that O2 is really antithical to life.

Reply to  Richard of NZ
October 7, 2018 5:11 am


O2 is essential to my life!!

That’s all that matters to me.

And I’m betting it would be all that mattered to you if it were withheld from you!

October 6, 2018 9:00 pm

Let’s hope that Associate Justice Judge Kavanaugh reigns in the worst of the activist unaccountable, unelected leftist agenda that some of the lower courts are trying to exercise by fiat in their domain of influence. We saw what this did to the EPA when they had a free hand to lord over so many people and industries without any actual regard to evidence, process, or results. When that abuse of process happens, especially in the hinterland where much of the wealth of the country is produced, there is a back lash by voters which is exactly what happened in the election of 2016. Don’t be surprised or blame anybody when somebody like Trump gets elected because of it, especially when the previous 8 years were effectively mismanaged, both domestically but also internationally on the world stage. The Middle East and the South China Sea are just two examples of such a magnitude of neglectful mismanagement since 2008, that it now will take a generation to fix and maybe a world war, if indeed the genie can be stuffed back in the bottle.

It is essential that we operate within the rule of law and know the ground rules and they don’t change by some interpretation by a single judge or Jr. appellant court somewhere. We see this same pattern of behaviour in bureaucracies and agencies that think they have free reign to run roughshod over anything they like, not matter what the consequences. The majority has now spoken in appointing Judge Kavanaugh today whether some like it or not. Let’s hope that the rest of the process with the other two branches of Government can get their house in order and establish a vision and pathway to long term success without tearing themselves apart in the process. But if they do, then hopefully the Supreme Court can still rule wisely within the confines of the Constitution.

Joel O'Bryan
October 6, 2018 9:16 pm

There is a deep (very deep) connection between the Democrat’s (and by extension George Soros and Tom Steyer) attempts to stop Brett Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court and the Climate Green Blob fits of derangement over Trump.

The histrionics these past 2 weeks have been far more than most people realize.
1. It was far, far more than just an abortion/pro-life issue.
2. It was far more than just public unions getting told union membership by public employees couldn’t be mandatory.
3. It was far more than the feeble worries of #METOO, or #EXXONKNEW.

George Soros and Tom Steyer, the guys who directly paid for all those Congress protests this week against Judge Kav, could give a rat’s patootie about those 3 things. They are in it for the money of a hobbled, socialist US economy.

This was about the Trillion$ of dollars of economic re-distribution; about crushing oil and nat gas drilling and production with onerous regulations; and most importantly about continuing generous tax credits for renewable wind and solar — all under the guise of “Climate Action.”

Action that could only happen in the US by Presidential Executive Order and EPA fiat, and then affirmed by a liberal Supreme Court, using Living Constitution doctrine, to apply the Big Brother rubber stamp to that bureaucratic overreach.

But the Democrats and their puppet masters are not finished with destroying the US.

In California, every Republican and Independent voter should “hold their nose” and vote for Kevin de León to get rid of Senator Diane Feinstein and send a message to every Democrat that that kind of bad behavior these last 4 weeks cost her her legacy and her Senate seat.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 6, 2018 9:55 pm

In California every non-Democratic voter of whatever affiliation should realize that the Sacramento political majority would seem to be happy with a de-facto one-party political system like, say Cuba. And they are well on the way to achieving it. In this general election there are at least 3 important offices where I can go to the polls and vote for the Democrat of my choice. No write-in candidates allowed.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 6, 2018 10:30 pm

Hopefully California’s demise will scare enough people so it doesn’t happen else where.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 7, 2018 6:33 am

But the Democrats and their puppet masters are not finished with destroying the US.

It’s just getting started. Riots and violence are close at hand. But not like the 60’s/70’s where it was pretty much amateurish & grass-roots. This violence will be coordinated and backed by dark money.

John Tillman
Reply to  beng135
October 7, 2018 5:49 pm

SDS was backed by the KGB.

Reply to  John Tillman
October 7, 2018 6:11 pm

Kinda like Donald Trump was supported by Russia?

John Tillman
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
October 7, 2018 6:19 pm


Not like that, since there is no evidence that Trump was supported by Russia. Unlike the financial support which Tom Hayden and other SDS leaders received from the USSR.

OTOH, Russia did bribe Sec. Clinton in order to gain control of US uranium reserves. And she conveniently made the contents of her classified computer accounts available to both Russia and China.

And the DNC made it child’s play for Russian hackers to access their emails.

John Tillman
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
October 7, 2018 6:24 pm

And of course, Sec. Clinton’s “husband” sold secret US military technology to Communist China in exchange for campaign cash.

Reply to  Keith Sketchley
October 7, 2018 6:40 pm

It really is fascinating how liberals really do seem to believe the lies they tell each other.

Reply to  Keith Sketchley
October 7, 2018 6:57 pm

Tillman says: “there is no evidence that Trump was supported by Russia. ”


Better tell that to the Russians that have been indicted by Mueller.

Don’t need to use cash, you can use purloined emails instead.

LMAO “bribe”… you know that Russia can’t force export of uranium?…..

They can “own” the Uranium One company, but not an ounce of uranium can be exported to Russia without permission from various agencies .

Tillman says “secret military technology was sold”…..
Another stupid thing Tillman posts. Inertial guidance chips aren’t “secret!!!!” They are “off the shelf.”

LOL @ Tilman
Learn about the deal before opening your mouth and making a fool of yourself.

Reply to  Keith Sketchley
October 7, 2018 7:03 pm

It really is fascinating how MarkW really does seem to believe all the lies he learns from the right wing echo chamber. Tillman too.

John Tillman
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
October 7, 2018 7:11 pm


The Russians indicted by Mueller weren’t working for Trump. Mueller says that Trump isn’t a target of his probe. Woodward said he looked for collusion for two years in researching his book on the Trump WH, but could find nothing.

Of course the moolah funneled through Canada to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation was a bribe for the State Department to approve the Russian uranium deal.

You also apparently don’t know all the highly classified military technology which President Clinton gave to China. It was not off the shelf “guidance chips”, but, for starters, radiation-hardened chips most definitely not commercially available. Defense products from IBM and Silicon Graphics (supercomputers sold to both Russia and China), Loral Corporation (sensitive missile technology), the Hughes Corporation (satellites), etc, was restricted solely to US use or to our closest allies.

Reply to  Keith Sketchley
October 7, 2018 8:59 pm

Tillman, the Russians were not working directly for Trump, but they were working TO GET HIM ELLECTE!!! LOL @ Tilman.

The State Department did not “approve” the deal. The SOS was one of about ten votes on the council that advised the president on the Uranium One deal. You really should learn about it before making your baseless accusations.

You also don’t know anything about Clinton’s dealing either.

Rad-hardened chips most certainly are available for anyone to purchase.

You’re funny….I enjoy reading your re-regurgitation of the right wing echo chamber’s stuff.

John Tillman
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
October 7, 2018 9:13 pm


Radiation-hardened chips for space applications were not commercially available in the 1990s. They are now because Clinton gave them to the Chinese. But in 1996, they required special waivers from the Commerce Dept to be exported. As you’d know had you ever actually studied the issue rather than regurgitating Left Wing lies.

I don’t rely on the Right Wing Echo Chamber, whatever that is. I was a defense journalist in the ’80s to ’00s. Is the NYT part of this echo chamber?

The deal would not and could not have gone through without Clinton’s approval, for which Bill was paid 500 grand for a speech in Moscow and the Clinton Crime Family Foundation $2.35 million via its Canadian cutouts.

You should do less laughing out loud and more reading. These are the same murderers, rapists, traitors, bribe-takers and scammers who ripped off donations to Haitian earthquake victims.

Reply to  Keith Sketchley
October 7, 2018 9:38 pm

Radiation harden chips most certainly were commercially available prior to 1990. Commercial telephone relay satellites needed them to function in space. Anyone could buy them in the 1980’s. How do you think the telephone relay satellites worked? (non-military) For example Hughes Syncom 2

Reply to  Keith Sketchley
October 7, 2018 9:43 pm

“The deal would not and could not have gone through without Clinton’s approval”

Clinton did not have a veto on the deal. The CFI can’t stop a sale, only the President can.

John Tillman
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
October 7, 2018 9:45 pm

Keith Sketchley October 7, 2018 at 9:38 pm

The chips that were on the Commerce Dept’s list for no export without a waiver were military grade, hardened not just against the ordinary radiation found in space, but from EMP, X- and gamma-rays and fast neutron flux from nuclear detonations in space.

The MIT grad dad of a college and grad school classmate, retired from the CG as a CPT, worked for Boeing on federal contracts in the 1970s hardening our strategic forces against nuclear radiation effects. If you think that by the 1990s work on these lines was commercially available, I’d urge you to study the history of radiation hardening.

Ask yourself why the Commerce Dept had never approved the sale of our most sensitive rad-hardened chips to any but our closest allies before 1996.

John Tillman
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
October 7, 2018 9:47 pm

Keith Sketchley October 7, 2018 at 9:43 pm

Apparently you didn’t read the NYT article on the Clinton’s bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors in this, as in so many other, deals.

Why do you suppose that the Russians gave them almost three million dollars?

John Tillman
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
October 7, 2018 9:48 pm


PS: But you’re right. Obama was also in on the deal. He went along with Clinton.

John Tillman
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
October 7, 2018 10:10 pm

And, speaking of the Commerce Dept, who can forget the mysterious (at best) death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown in 1996?

Nor Al Gore at the Buddhist monastery, one of the various Chinese cash contribution cutouts? Although IIRC, more moolah was diverted through Indonesia.

Bob Denby
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 7, 2018 7:55 am

You write: ‘..But the Democrats and their puppet masters are not finished with destroying the US…’

You’re absolutely correct! Not only are they not finished, history tells us that they will NEVER stop trying to take down this Constitutional Republic in the name of creating a classless society. It’s important to realize, like rust, they never sleep and require continuous opposition!

October 6, 2018 9:20 pm

The Clean Power Plan is not valid under the Clean Air Act. That’s why an injunction was issued in Scalia’s last act.

October 6, 2018 10:07 pm

The good news just keeps on coming out. Justice Kavanaugh believes in the Rule of Law and that could be a problem for the purveyors of alarmist greenhouse gas policies. Justice Kavanaugh will curb the ‘environmentalists’ and in doing so will protect the environment and the economy.

Leon Brozyna
October 6, 2018 10:48 pm

The Hooters story got bumped by this???!!!

Oh well; at least there is one silver lining here … he’s now JusticeKavanaugh. That ought to give all those sad, hate-filled creatures that ran around DC screaming their fool heads off real hissy fits.

Now, let’s move on to more serious matters and bring back those Hooters!

Reply to  Leon Brozyna
October 7, 2018 5:16 am

I think the Hooters story is still there; just scroll down a bit.


John Endicott
Reply to  RockyRoad
October 7, 2018 10:01 am

Yeah, let’s be upfront and admit the hooters story was the headlight topic of this forum. What boob would bump the hooters story for this /sarc

Ill Tempered Klavier
Reply to  John Endicott
October 7, 2018 5:45 pm

One who has two.

Kat – female person of color / red

Ill Tempered Klavier
Reply to  RockyRoad
October 7, 2018 5:50 pm

One who has two.

Kat – female person of color / red

Mike Smith
Reply to  Leon Brozyna
October 7, 2018 10:56 am

This story features a lot more boobs!

October 6, 2018 10:49 pm

“. . . Claim: Judge Kavanaugh’s Adherence to Rule of Law Will Impede Climate Action”

Imagine that.

In America, “Climate Action’s” roots can be found in illegal and unconstitutional administrative “law” that was deliberately set in motion to give federal government agencies like the EPA the ability to issue rules and regulations under the color of law without having to go through Congress for approval. Think of administrative “law” and “climate action” and “climate dictators” as something akin to a Russia government system run by agency czars. Climate change (ne: greenhouse gases, CO2, global warming) has been shadowed and funded by an international banking cabal and their confederates (who’re positioned in strategic countries worldwide). This group also owns the UN, the Fed, and views America’s Constitution as a stumbling block to a centrally controlled global government, which they want (with themselves in charge behind the curtain).

Administrative “rules “and “regulations” carry with them fines and incarceration for “infractions”. Nowhere is this more evident than with America’s EPA, which has been used as a tool in an attempt to take central control of private property in America—the antithesis of America’s Constitutional law. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was their original hammer. Their current scythe, Waters of the United States (WOTUS), is now in the courts. Here, the EPA has declared they are in control of all waters above or below ground in America, including the rain that falls on that ground and by default, the land it’s on or under. This is why Scott Pruitt was driven from office as head of the EPA, why he had a bug-proof place to make calls, and why he posted security in the hallways to his office. Pruitt was ripping these illegal “laws” and “regulations” out by the handful.

Climate changers seek this kind of control and power globally. And they need a set of global administrative laws from which to govern. This — not concern for the climate — was the whole purpose behind Kyoto, Copenhagen, Paris, etc.

America’s Constitution is why socialist democrats hated Judge Kavanaugh and tried to delay his appointment. They knew he was intimately familiar with the Constitution, its importance, the case law that has been built around it. As did Judge Scalia, who died under mysterious circumstances.

Here’s a quick summary of how administrative “law” got its foothold in America.

And a good scholarly article written by Philip Hamburger, Professor of Law, Columbia Law School, about the implications of administrative “law”.

Old England
Reply to  Wrussr
October 7, 2018 12:56 am

Copenhagen had a bit tucked at the tail end that would have created a de facto global government ….. unelected and unaccountable table yet able to make global environmental laws that would over-ride all nation states domestic laws.

The U.N. and the wealthy elite aren’t going to stop their aim to end democracy and replace it with a socialist-marxist cabal any time soon.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Old England
October 7, 2018 4:03 am

Copenhagen failed, as do all other UN meetings because the developing nations don’t want to spend America’s & Europe’s taxpayers money on what the UN wanted them tospend it on, e.g. women, girls education, etc. etc! The UK gave India, a nation developing a space programme with the intent on putting a man on the moon by 2020, £2 billion for their girls/women education programme, typical Blairite socialism!!!

Reply to  Old England
October 7, 2018 4:16 am

“as something akin to a Russia government system run by agency czars.”

This stupid mis-use of the word czar comes from the western media, it is not what a Russian would say. Certainly not from the soviet era , if that is what you were meaning by “Russian government”.

Reply to  Greg
October 7, 2018 6:43 am

Remember the Beluga whale, the native to the Russian Arctic, basking in the Thames’ warm waters next to the London’s Docklands Financial centre.
Well, the whale appears to has implanted some kind receiving sonar type gear, picking up the underwater LF secure top secret communications then re-transmitting data to it’s on land controller on the mobile/cell phone frequency every time it re-surfaces. (s/c)

M__ S__
October 6, 2018 11:00 pm

Good. Less effort and resources wasted on a meaningless gesture.

October 6, 2018 11:05 pm

Of course, Justice Kavanaugh almost certainly will recuse himself from ruling on the Clean Power Plan. He certainly can’t hear any appeal claiming that the earlier decision in which he participated was wrong.

Reply to  Frank
October 7, 2018 5:06 am

It looks like you are correct.

The section also provides that a judge is disqualified “where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding”; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome … link

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  commieBob
October 7, 2018 6:04 am

Lower court judges are bound by redusal rules. But for the Supreme Court, they are at the discretion of the individual justice.

For example Ruth Bader Ginsburg made public her anti-Trump opinions before the election. When the Trump immigration ban came before the Court, she did not recuse herself. A lower court judge would had to recuse in that situation. But the vast amjority of judges have the common sense to keep their personal opinions private.

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 7, 2018 8:02 am

Kagan is another example. She worked on ACA and cheered when it passed, but didn’t recuse herself when it made to the Supreme Court.

M__ S__
Reply to  Reg Nelson
October 7, 2018 9:33 am

For the collectivist (rule from the bench) justices, anything goes.

Conservative justices usually adhere to more ethical standards.

Reply to  Reg Nelson
October 7, 2018 12:22 pm

Reg writes: “[Kagan] worked on ACA”.

How did she work on it? What did she actually do that required her to recuse herself? As Obama’s Solicitor General, she presented the government’s position on many cases to the Supreme Court and other courts, but she left that position soon after the ACA passed and before any lawsuits reached the attention of her office.

She asked her deputy serve on a committee to plan for legal challenges to the ACA. The legal advice provided by that committee remained confidential as attorney/client work product. Kagan asserted at her hearings that her opinion had not been sought.

There is plenty of room for disagreement about what warrants and doesn’t warrant recusal, there is no justice in complaining about failures to recuse when it hurts causes you favor and demanding recusal when it helps causes you favor. It is less disruptive for an AG to recuse himself and be replaced by the dAG, than it is for the Supreme Court to fail to rule 4-4. Some recent recusals:

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Reg Nelson
October 7, 2018 9:17 pm

@ Frank

1. Let’s start by laying forth the straightforward case that Kagan had a legal duty to recuse herself. (I briefly outline that case here and invite readers to follow these links for a more detailed discussion and documentation.)

a. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(3), a justice has a legal duty to recuse herself from a proceeding in which the justice “has served in government employment and in such capacity participated as counsel [or] adviser … concerning the proceeding.” Any such “participat[ion]” would appear to be disqualifying. As with financial interests that trigger disqualification, the statute does not set forth a minimal threshold.

b. In her capacity as solicitor general, Elena Kagan was personally involved, even if only to a limited degree, in advising how to defend against challenges to Obamacare. Among other things:

– In January 2010, Kagan personally assigned her deputy Neal Katyal to be part of “a group to get thinking about how to defend against inevitable challenges to the health care proposals that are pending.” Katyal then informed the Associate Attorney General’s office that “Elena would definitely like OSG [the Office of the Solicitor General] to be involved in this set of issues,” that he will handle the matter, and that “we will bring Elena in as needed.”

– In March 2010, Katyal copied Kagan on his advice to Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli that DOJ “start assembling a response” to a draft complaint “so that we have it ready to go.”

– Katyal and Kagan then consulted on whether he or she should attend a White House meeting “to help us prepare for litigation” (Perrelli’s phrase) on what Katyal referred to as “litigation of singular importance.”

Therefore, Kagan had a duty to recuse under section 455(b)(3).

(Kagan, it seems, minimized her participation in the Obamacare litigation in order to enhance her viability as a Supreme Court candidate. The Obama White House, after all, would have been much less inclined to nominate her if the public record—rather than documents later obtained through FOIA requests—had revealed her duty to recuse.)

And you ignored my other point that she cheered the passage of the bill.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 7, 2018 2:13 pm

Joel: Justice Ginsburg never should have publicly expressed her opinion about Trump’s fitness to be president. However, the case about the immigration ban had nothing to do with Trump’s fitness to be president. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a president who had recently made many public remarks proving he was prejudiced against anti-Muslims (all the justices agreed upon this conclusion) was fit to regulate immigration for national security reasons in a manner that would have a disparate impact on immigration of Muslims (another fact all justices agreed upon). A 5-4 majority agreed nation security was more important than having an unprejudiced man in charge of making these regulations (despite the fact that Congress instructed the executive branch to create and enforce immigration regulations without religious prejudice).

If the president had appointed unprejudiced subordinates to create regulations that would meet his security objectives, this conflict could have been avoided.

Reply to  Frank
October 7, 2018 3:04 pm

Of course those who have judged the president to be prejudiced are themselves prejudiced against anyone who disagrees with them. To the point that they are willing to lie about what the president said and take his positions so badly out of context as to make them unrecognizable.

Reply to  Frank
October 7, 2018 8:01 pm

What is hell is “prejudiced”?

How is it possible to define “prejudiced” without the whole Dem party being “prejudiced” against whites, against men, against white men?

How is the whole Dem party not unfit to vote to anything relevant to white men?

John Endicott
Reply to  Frank
October 9, 2018 6:21 am

Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a president who had recently made many public remarks proving he was prejudiced against anti-Muslims

Trump is prejudiced against those who are opposed to Muslims?????

Reply to  commieBob
October 7, 2018 11:57 pm

Uh, no, there are no “judges” on SCOTUS, only justices. They are not held to any recusal standard, unless a justice feels compelled to recuse himself out of the goodness of his heart.

October 6, 2018 11:08 pm

No wonder Steyer and Sorros are freaking out . They just lost the highest court in the land for decades .
Hard to go full on globalist when the Constitution is going to be upheld .
I hope he has a full time security detail because Democrats are now so desperate another Seth Rich “robbery ”
will be their go to response .

Reply to  Amber
October 7, 2018 10:33 am

Most of the oldest remaining judges are left to far left.
Even if Trump is only able to replace them with moderates instead of hard core leftists, it’s still a win for the rule of law.

October 6, 2018 11:17 pm

Suck it libs! Finally a little sanity. 🙂

October 6, 2018 11:23 pm

Nope, not tired of winning yet.
My cheeks are sore from grinning so much.
Many happy days lately!!!

October 7, 2018 12:03 am

Under the Constitution, the Federal EPA shouldn’t even exist, but rather each state should establish and enforce its own environmental standards and laws.

I’d love to see this happen.

Total federal regulation compliance costs are $2 TRILLION PER YEAR, which consumers end up paying for in the form of higher prices.

I don’t think the federal EPA will be dissolved anytime soon, but I’m know Trump will continue to dramatically cut regulations, and hopefully SCOTUS will make some landmark decisions curtailing agencies from over regulating beyond their mandated powers.

HD Hoese
Reply to  SAMURAI
October 7, 2018 7:37 am

What I experienced with implementation of environmental laws was moving from the recognition of private property to incremental excuses to regulate it. The Louisiana gopher frog case is near the ultimate in absurdity. If the frog comes back across the Pearl River from Mississippi it needs that land. Not completely crazy speculation suggests it could be there, impossible to confirm from computers in DC. I base that on the previous serious consideration to put oysters on the endangered list, minimal field work from numerous states easily proving it idiotic. However, field work might get into a 4th amendment illegal search. Covering the land with concrete or ethanol farms ain’t smart, though.

On most coasts sea level was a reasonable separation except in places like Louisiana where the marsh is privately owned. Inland it gets quantitatively complicated, because everything has to be “wet” land to grow anything, except maybe with water from the atmosphere. This is one reason why “land” has a terra firma, but can have a different legal, definition. When you lose your “land” to subsidence, storms, or sea level rise the state acquires it in most cases, taken without due process or compensation.

Therefore the argument that the EPA is unconstitutional seems reasonable, the 9th and 10th amendment applying. State lines get crossed with water and air, but there is currently lots of duplication with at least some state’s equivalent agency and too much paperwork, just like health care.

October 7, 2018 12:41 am

If this POTUS can get through at least one more SCOTUS pick it will make it very difficult for the leftist nut balls to pack the court in the future. And if you don’t think they would attempt to do such a thing when they get back in power then you’ve not been paying attention. Ginsburg is a walking skeleton obviously knocking on heavens door, Breyer is up there in age also. There is even talk that Sotomayor’s state of health is not so good.

Now that we’ve seen how far they will go to “resist” and there almost certainly won’t be any significant punishment for those that carried out that scam, one can expect the “resistance” to go even further should Trump get another pick.

Reply to  RAH
October 7, 2018 5:21 am

I see where criminal referrals are in the works for those scammers. And the evidence is compelling. For once, justice just might be served!

Reply to  RockyRoad
October 7, 2018 9:35 am

I’ll believe the Eunuchs will really do something about it when I see it. How many people have gone to jail for the Hillary e-mails? How many have gone to jail for using their law enforcement and intelligence positions in the Federal government to first try to influenced the outcome of an domestic election and then, when that failed, to pull off a “silent coup”?

John Endicott
Reply to  RAH
October 9, 2018 6:28 am

If this POTUS can get through at least one more SCOTUS pick it will make it very difficult for the leftist nut balls to pack the court in the future.

There’s been talk that the Dems will try to add Justices to the court (much like FDR wanted to do*) should they take control of the White House and Congress.

* after leftist/progressive FDR’s plan to pack the court failed, when he finally got the chance to pick a supreme court justice he chose a member of the klu klux klan. Says it all really.

October 7, 2018 12:42 am

Going back m an y years Michall Gobochov tried to reform Communism. He failed an d we all know what happened. But he said afterwards that every small reform was blocked by the Russian burocrats.

So how many burocrats do we have in the USA, who will just do what they consider is best for the community ?


Reply to  Michael
October 7, 2018 2:52 pm

I don’t know, but there are lots of bureaucrats!

October 7, 2018 1:36 am

I’m concerned if he really thinks global warming is a serious problem.

Peta of Newark
October 7, 2018 2:32 am

Oh diddums – someone who might pull a Warmist up and ask them to explain the GHGE.

Somehow, I don’t know how or why exactly, I suspect the usual method employed (the deliverance of a torrent of Ad-Homs) won’t get you far with A Judge.
Yes it will, but not anyplace you’d want or like to be……

October 7, 2018 4:10 am

That’ll put a damper on the left’s global warming and abortion industries Worldwide.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
October 7, 2018 4:43 am

Alarmism is about baseless accusations and presumption of guilt. Justice Kavanaugh has now an insight into it.

Bruce Cobb
October 7, 2018 5:02 am

Well, he’s an idiot for Believing the CAGW nonsense, but at least he respects the Constitution. So I look at it as a win, just barely.

Grumpy Bill
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 7, 2018 2:54 pm

I find his disregard for the 4th Amendment troubling.

October 7, 2018 5:29 am

With the US degenerating into a Wild West scenario, any adherence to the rule of law should be welcomed by those still sane.

October 7, 2018 8:57 am

And the winning just keep going! Now, who to replace Ginsburg? This is going to be fun!

October 7, 2018 9:01 am

If the “Greens” are worried, I’m not.

John Endicott
Reply to  Joey
October 9, 2018 6:32 am

I’m worried whenever the “Greens” aren’t

Tom Abbott
October 7, 2018 9:16 am

I think Trump’s next Supreme Court nominee will be a woman.

The Democrats will attack her just as vigorously as they did Kavanaugh, if they can find or make up the right angle. They are no respecter of gender when it comes to politics and power.

Let’s see, that makes over a dozen false accusations against President Trump, and three false accusations against Justice Kavanaugh, that the Dirty Democrats have ginned up, and not one of the accusations has any facts to back up the charges. Typical Democrat Dirty Tricks. Dragging a person’s reputation through the mud is standard operating procedure for these despicable, thoroughly deluded people.

The Radical Democrats are a poison to our freedoms. Vote Republican if you don’t want these maniacs running your life.

John Tillman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 7, 2018 8:41 pm


Meet Dianne Feinstein’s worst nightmare in all her 85 years:

comment image

Forty-six year-old Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett, of Louisiana and Indiana (Notre Dame Law School), devout Catholic, distinguished legal scholar and mother of seven (two adopted, one special needs).

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 9, 2018 6:35 am

You know it’s all political/lacking in any semblance of reality, when the creepy porn lawyer is involved.

Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE
October 7, 2018 10:25 am

The rule of law expects evidence, aka science.

The point of this second experiment is to demonstrate that a surface with multiple outgoing heat transfer pathways cannot radiate as a BB. Just as reflected, transmitted, absorbed incoming radiation must equal 1.0 the outgoing radiative and non-radiative heat transfer processes must equal 1.0. Radiation does not function independently from the non-radiative processes.

The immersion heater is feeding 1,180 W of power into the insulated pot of water which is boiling at an equilibrium temperature of 200 °F. (6,300 feet) The only significant pathway for energy out of this system is through the water’s surface.

Any surface at 200 °F radiates at 1,021 W/m^2. This is 2.38% of the 42,800 W/m^2 power input to the system. That means 97.6% of the power input is carried away by non-radiative heat transfer processes, i.e. conduction, convection and evaporation.

Likewise, the significant non-radiative heat transfer processes of the atmospheric molecules render the 396 W/m^2 LWIR radiation upwelling from the surface impossible.

No 396 W/m^2 upwelling BB LWIR means there is
No energy to power the 333 W/m^2 GHG out-of-nowhere perpetual energy loop,
No energy for the CO2/GHGs to “trap” or absorb and re-radiate “warming” the atmosphere/surface and
No man-caused climate change.

This second experiment validates the findings of the modest experiment.

Modest experiment:

Annotated TFK_bams09

October 7, 2018 1:53 pm

The Supreme Court is being restocked with non drooler’s who’s left wing staff actually call the shots .
At least one or two more changes during Trump’s term would be nice .
The character assassination of Kavanagh by Democrats and the sleaze bag lawyers just created a monster back lash .
Where is bug eyed Spartacus when you need him ?

October 7, 2018 4:25 pm
There is proof that Brett Kavanugh’s carbon footprint, specially his methane emission as a 16 year old, are well documented.

October 7, 2018 7:12 pm

Not just the rule of law, but any notion that an accusation (of a person, a “toxin”, a product, a technology) isn’t proof, goes against the nihilism of the left, “center” or “resistance”.

The idea of asking for evidence even when the accused has a bad reputation.

Reply to  simple-touriste
October 7, 2018 7:52 pm

Reading this:

I don’t see anything in the method or result that the Dems cannot love.

Many people lost their job? They weren’t “entitled” to one.

John Endicott
Reply to  simple-touriste
October 9, 2018 6:40 am

While his methods were questionable (to say the least) he wasn’t wrong. There was (and still is) a communist/socialist element embedded in Hollywood and the government (today it’s called the Deep State) that is hellbent on subverting (“resisting”) our great republic.

Peter Plail
October 8, 2018 1:23 am

“He’s often struck down regulation that he didn’t think Congress had authorized explicitly enough. He reads statutory authority very narrowly and that is a major concern for things like the Clean Power Plan,”
So you have a judge who is a stickler for precision in law. Since when has it been a bad thing that lax laws are prevented from passing.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
October 8, 2018 2:00 am

If Kavanaugh employs logic and rationality and along the way scuttles leftist activist court cases then not only is the USA winning.

All of us are winning.

Thank you President Trump.

Lisa G
October 8, 2018 12:54 pm

“Greens are worried Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court will impede their efforts to stretch Congressional mandates beyond their original intent.” – – – I BLOODY WELL HOPE SO!

Verified by MonsterInsights