Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
One for the not so swift among us-
"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
... You wrote: "Sean Corbett" wrote in message ... You wrote: "Sean Corbett" wrote in message ... You wrote: However, since my copy of the Constitution contains neither the word "gasoline", nor "global warming", nor "energy", nor "oil", nor "environment", my oath of office would compel me to do nothing. Hmm, so you think that everything that GWB does, says, or tries to get other countries to do is tied directely to the Constitution? Read my response to Bedroom. GWB is a wretched president. As was Clinton. As was Bush pere. Nice attempt at a dodge. ***ALL*** presidents got involved with issues that were not part of their mandate. Then there was no point in your specifying GWB. Why did you? To refute your nonsense about how a president shouldn't get involved with non-constitutional issues, What does the presidential oath of office command the president to do? because that was nothing but a tactic you used to avoid answering my question about what YOU would do about the scientific discovery I mentioned. Do you still remember? It was less than 90 minutes ago. I answered your question. Ask your mommy to read my answer to you. Perhaps it would help if you saw some stupid people using hypothetical arguments to tweeze apart ideas and understand them better: CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Mr. Kayatta, if I took a drum of water out of the river and put it in the garage next to the river for 5 years, and, 5 years later, came out and poured that drum of water back into the river, is that a discharge into the river? MR. KAYATTA: Yes, that would be a discharge into the river. MR. KAYATTA: There is -- we draw a distinction -- and I'm referring just to discharge, I'm not addressing the issue that the Court could get to in another case of whether you actually need a discharge of a pollutant, as to just a discharge into the river -we draw a distinction between actually removing something entirely from the river, exercising control over it. Your hypothetical, Mr. Chief Justice, had it for 5 years. In that situation, one could say that there may be a discharge into the river when an activity is proposed to pour that back into the river. In a -- in the dams -- the dams, the water continuously flows down. The water never leaves the single body of water called the Presumpscot. And that's the distinction that we would draw. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Even though it's retained in a -- what -- an impoundment pool, or whatever, behind -- MR. KAYATTA: Well, the dams slow down the water as it comes down the Presumpscot. And because the dams slow down the water, then the river widens in an area called an impoundment area. But the -- there is a continuous motion leaving the dam in the same amount of water that comes into the area above the dam. JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, this -- CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So, you think it's a different case if it's not a continuous motion; in other words, that the water is released -- you know, it's released on the weekends, but, during the week, it has to build up in the -- you would draw a distinction and say there's a discharge, in that case? The rest is he http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...ts/04-1527.pdf |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Announcing S.A.L.T.S Pacific Swift Offshore Voyage 2007-2008 | General | |||
Announcing S.A.L.T.S Pacific Swift Offshore Voyage 2007-2008 | ASA | |||
Announcing S.A.L.T.S Pacific Swift Offshore Voyage 2007-2008 | Cruising | |||
Announcing S.A.L.T.S Pacific Swift Offshore Voyage 2007-2008 | Cruising | |||
Swift Kipawa for Sale: Ontario Canada | General |