3 ms·
I dont think that is obvious at all, given the broad oversight over emissions given to the EPA. Furthermore, I think looking at the recent decisions to uphold
by spencerflem 4y ago
I dont think that is obvious at all, given the broad oversight over emissions given to the EPA.
Furthermore, I think looking at the recent decisions to uphold gerrymandered maps in Alabama and Louisiana should without a shadow of a doubt prove how partisan the court is.
And they can't claim to be "literalist" or "originalist" when deciding that border patrols duties are more important than the 4th ammendment
- WalterBright 4y agoBoth parties engage in gerrymandering whenever they get the chance.
- deminature 4y agoDems attempted to stop gerrymandering entirely by creating an independent districting body with the bill HR1, but were blocked from doing so.
- spencerflem 4y agoUhh, yeah, but this is the Supreme Court who, if you look at the rest of this thread, people are claiming is "non partisan" So if the supreme court is doing it then they're partisan QED Also, please, one side is doing much more voter suppression than the other