permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Wow, that is some sort of shorted out logic.

Any one who does not see things in that same perverted way as you is a thug, pimp or a whore...

In that case they must be good pals with you orange fungus of a president.. they are his kind of people..

How about todays stock market>>>

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Does that green dress photo bother you to this day?? Photoshop,,

That darn female biology is so confusing isn`t it..

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

You are correct about that, one is a dignified, ethical former first lady. Very well educated, accomplished and intelligent..

The other is an international slut, liar and gold digger who lives apart from her pocket money provider..

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

And I bet you truly believe that.. No doubt at all..

bahmer

You really shouldn't talk about Michelle Obama that way after all she can't help herself. She married Barack for his money and the fact that he was going to be president.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Can you lie any harder??

cling to you Bibles for morals... LOL.... the have no morals

You put a slut and her keeper in the white house and celebrate his many marrages and assorted kids and high five his times with porn stars when his wife of day is indisposed.

Morals... What a hopeless joke..

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

first Obama, or any President does not argue their case before the courts..

Then their is this..

A spokeswoman for Goodlatte gave us a list of the 13 cases he referenced. We reviewed the evidence his office offered enlisted the help of a few experts to help us parse through the legalese.

Goodlatte’s assertion doesn’t seem to hold water. Susan Bloch, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, said the NLRB case is very different than the rest of the cases on the list, in that the court actually was ruling on a separations of power issue and a presidential overreach.

"That’s a fair case of the president’s use of executive authority getting rejected," she said.

But the rest of the claim? "It’s a total overstatement," Bloch said.

Why?

For starters, in eight of the cases, the alleged overreach occurred under President George W. Bush, as did the court cases that challenged the administration (United States vs. Jones, Sackett vs. EPA, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School vs. EEOC, Gabelli vs. SEC, Arkansas Fish & Game Commission v. United States, PPL Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Horne vs. USDA, and Bond vs. United States). Bush’s Justice Department handled the initial court proceedings in most instances.

Obama’s Justice Department in many of the cases handled the appellate process and ultimately defended the actions to the Supreme Court. But that’s commonplace, experts we spoke with said.

Goodlatte spokeswoman Jessica Collins contended that doesn't make the chairman's statement untrue. "Regardless of who started the policies that were overturned by the courts unanimously during the Obama administration, President Obama decided to continue those policies which were struck down," she said.

But that isn't really what Goodlatte claimed. He said Obama "exceeded his presidential authority," not that Obama defended executive overreach.

Additionally, in many of the cases, executive overreach wasn’t really even at issue. For example, in United States vs. Jones, the court was ruling on whether the FBI had the power to use a GPS to track a suspect and gather evidence.

Technically, the FBI is a federal department under the Justice Department, a department in the executive branch. But the court was not reeling in an administration that was abusing power. Rather, "it gave us some guidance about how new technology and the Fourth Amendment should interact," Bloch said. "It has nothing to do with presidential authority."

Another case on the list, Arizona vs. United States, surprised our experts. Why? Because many saw it as a partial victory for Obama.

This is the case surrounding Arizona’s tough immigration laws that many civil rights groups said amounted to racial profiling. In 2012, the Supreme Court released a complicated 5-3 ruling, in which the court actually sided with the Obama administration on three of four counts. On the fourth provision, which allowed Arizona authorities to check the immigration status of anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant, the court basically said it’s too soon to tell, and unanimously decided to send the issue down to the lower courts to monitor for further challenges.

"The Supreme Court struck down three of the four because they interfered with federal immigration enforcement, which was defended by the Obama administration to advocate for the laws passed by Congress," Stephen Wermiel, a constitutional law professor at American University.

Another case on the list was last week’s ruling in United States vs. Wurie, which was decided along with Riley vs. California. The court ruled that police could not search your cell phone without a warrant if you were arrested.

Wermiel said it was "absurd" to include the Wurie case on the list. It also originated prior to Obama taking office and was the result of a Boston police effort. Like the Jones case, it dealt with technology issues, not executive overreach.

Another case on the Goodlatte’s list and decided last week, McCullen vs. Coakley, dealt with state laws, particular whether a Massachusetts law that put no-protest zones around abortion clinics was constitutional. While the Obama administration filed a brief supporting the Massachusetts law, the issue decided had little to do with executive authority.

The last case included, Sekhar vs. United States, did originate under the Obama administration. It’s complicated, but basically the FBI sought extortion charges against a Massachusetts venture capitalist, who was accused of trying to force a legal adviser to the New York state comptroller to persuade the comptroller to invest in his company. The Supreme Court said the FBI couldn’t arrest him under federal extortion laws.

In all, how does Goodlatte’s assertion hold up? Not well, our experts said.

"This is a concocted statistic," said Tom Goldstein, publisher of the Supreme Court blog SCOTUSblog.com. "It's just saying that the government lost cases unanimously. The government participates in roughly 60 cases a term. Every administration loses cases unanimously."

"It's true that the Obama Administration's views have been rejected repeatedly in the Supreme Court. But this way of putting it overreaches considerably."

Our ruling

Goodlatte said, the "9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority." A thorough review of the 13 cases found many instances where presidential authority was not at issue. Further, most of the cases originated under and were first litigated by the Bush administration.

We rate Goodlatte’s statement False.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Do not worry, it will only be a problem for your grand kids.. Go back to sleep..

bahmer

This may help you Permafrost if you care to look and listen.

Climate Models Predict Climate Change

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZN2jt2cCU4

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Well geezz ld, give him someeee credit, he dd afterall evolve from ape~~ perhaps why he wants to act insulted now~~

Sorry couldnt resist..

Happy Valentines Day~~

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Alert~~alert~~ too much common sense, too much independant testimony here from a well respected scientist ..oohhhhh nnnoooooo ...

Gosh dang bahmer, now you’ve done it..~

Happy Valentines Day~~❤️

bahmer

Glad you liked it I was hoping perma would watch it.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Lets hold out some hope, but not bank on it, ok??

bahmer

10-4

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

You need to be carefull in your selection of "experts""

harper became a punch line years ago..


Climate Misinformer: William Happer
Quotes Articles Arguments Blogs Links Search
Quotes by William Happer
Climate Myth What the Science Says
"The contemporary 'climate crusade' has much in common with the medieval crusades."
7 October 2011 (Source)
Modern scientists, not anti-science skeptics, follow in Galileo’s footsteps.

"The frequency of extreme events has either not changed or has decreased in the 150 years that CO2 levels have increased from 270 to 390 ppm."
1 July 2011 (Source)
Extreme weather events are being made more frequent and worse by global warming.
"Carbon is the stuff of life. Our bodies are made of carbon. A normal human exhales around 1 kg of CO2 (the simplest chemically stable molecule of carbon in the earth’s atmosphere) per day."
1 July 2011 (Source)
By breathing out, we are simply returning to the air the same CO2 that was there to begin with.
"As far as green plants are concerned, CO2 is not a pollutant, but part of their daily bread—like water, sunlight, nitrogen, and other essential elements."
1 July 2011 (Source)
Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant

"About fifty million years ago, a brief moment in the long history of life on earth, geological evidence indicates, CO2 levels were several thousand ppm, much higher than now. And life flourished abundantly."
1 July 2011 (Source)
When CO2 was higher in the past, the sun was cooler.


Both from skeptical science..

I know you will not follow a link, this is long so you may not read it. Shows how bad a once well thought of physicist can fall.

Another example is William Happer, a Professor of Physics at Princeton. To me, the credibility of a scientist doesn't just come from what he publishes in the literature, but also what he publishes throughout the internet as well. In the case of many of the more prominent global warming skeptics who have actual publishing experience, much of what they say on the internet is done precisely because it would never get accepted into a journal document. Nonetheless, by placing themselves in a position of authority on the subject, they also position themselves to be criticized for what they say. The same is true of me, or many other climate bloggers who now try to "teach the science."

Just who is William Happer to someone who doesn't really care much? Well, he is "the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University", which probably makes him correct concerning a lot of physical phenomena he chooses to talk about. But then you come across an article such as this (which was then reproduced at Watts Up With That, presumably for the sole reason that it is a disinformation piece).

The outline of the article is to lay to rest the "contemporary moral epidemic" surrounding "the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet." As one would expect from such an opening, there are also the usual references to a climate crusade, money-hungry govermnemts, greedy scientists, etc. For the next 10 paragraphs or so, Happer uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing, except that life needs carbon and it shouldn't be regulated as a "pollutant."

Personally, I have little interest in the legality of making CO2 a "pollutant" or not. I'm quite sure different people here have their own perspective on this, but to me whether we call it a "pollutant" or a "banana" doesn't change its physical properties: CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas, and it is important in impeding how efficiently our planet loses radiative heat to space. We don't often think of CO2 as a "pollutant" on Venus, yet it still allows the planet to support temperatures well above the melting point of lead or tin.

Happer then throws in a few classical straw man attacks such as:

"CO2 levels have increased from about 280 ppm to 390 ppm over the past 150 years or so, and the earth has warmed by about 0.8 degree Celsius during that time. Therefore the warming is due to CO2. But correlation is not causation. Roosters crow every morning at sunrise, but that does not mean the rooster caused the sun to rise. The sun will still rise on Monday if you decide to have the rooster for Sunday dinner."

This would, of course, be a perfectly valid counter-argument to would-be fallacious reasoning, yet it isn't the reasoning any real scientist uses, and is therefore a smokescreen. Naturally, the WUWT crowd has eaten it up without thinking twice. The causative mechanism is the underlying radiative physics of how a CO2 molecule interacts with infrared light, and also a wide variety of indirect signatures of climate change induced by agents acting on the longwave part of the spectrum, such as stratospheric cooling or the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.

Happer can't resist throwing in a few outdated one-liners about the Vikings in a "green" Greenland, how CO2 lags temperatures in ice cores, and other boring punchlines that most skeptics don't even bother with anymore. He implies that Earth cooled by about 10 C during the Younger Dryas, but actually the YD was a time of relatively little global temperature change, even though a large area of the planet was actually being affected (see here). There's a whole list of other quick talking points about climategate, the hockey stick, etc that readers here will be well familiar with. What is most surprising to me is that a distinguished physicist apparently has no original thoughts on the matter.

Happer's reasoning is well out of line throughout his entire article, yet that doesn't stop a Princeton physicist from declaring with such confidence that this CO2-induced global warming thing is all a sham. Throughout the article he shows his unambiguous mission to confuse the reader, and his own ignorance concerning the physics of climate. He makes a number of serious accusations against a very large community, something which if unfounded (as it is surely is) should ruin the reputation of any serious scientist. Indeed, for me at least, it has. It is possible his own area of research is so far removed from climate that none of his colleagues will bother to care.

In short, even Princeton can make mistakes in who they decide should represent their department.