I am not big on Wall Street, but, I found this interview interesting.

 He finds Ukraine an important war to fight among other things.

We must move forward with alternative energies.

The EPA is more needed than ever! 

Some of the people most likely to benefit from the change to alternative energies are those seeking "environmental justice" in some of our most polluted neighborhoods. This is not even a decision, it must go forward.

"It is also important to recognize when something is working."

July 3, 2024

By Leslie Sattler

Imagine getting paid $249 billion just for doing the right thing. (click here)

Well, that's what the United States earned over the last few years by increasing its use of renewable energy such as wind and solar power, according to the Guardian.

From 2019 to 2022, America seriously stepped up its renewable energy game. An illuminating study published in Cell Reports Sustainability found that wind and solar generation jumped by a whopping 55%, to the point where it provided about 14% of the country's total electricity needs last year.

That's like removing 71 million gas-guzzling cars from the road each year in terms of the climate-harming pollution that was prevented.

But wait, there's more: By burning way less coal and oil for electricity, we also dramatically improved the nation's air quality.

Key pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which are linked to asthma and other health issues, dropped by 1.1 million tons. And all those cleaner skies translated to an estimated $249 billion in public health benefits....

In order to solve the problems that comes with change it is necessary to GO THERE. The greening of the energy sector MUST receive infrastructure investment in order to solve the problems we face with climate.

July 3, 2024

By Alastair Marsh

Green innovators (click here) too advanced for venture capital but not advanced enough for infrastructure investors are falling through the cracks — and time is running out....

The Roberts' Court is not appropriate in its practice of crony politics.

The presidency of the USA is the Executive Branch because it heads up the country's legal enforcement. The legislative branch is elected to address the concerns of the people, they make the laws that the Executive Branch upholds. I sincerely am worried about the focus of some members of the Supreme Court that are seeking to dismantle the federal authority. 

July 2, 2024

By Zach Schonfeld and Ella Lee

Over opposition from two conservative justices, (click here) the Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away a challenge that could’ve gutted the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

An Ohio-based construction contractor backed by Republican-led states and anti-regulatory interests contended Congress unconstitutionally delegated its legislative powers to the executive branch when it gave such broad authority to the agency, which sets and enforces workplace standards....

That is what the US Congress does, it legislates. If it wanted to change the oversight of the AGENCIES of the USA Presidential Cabinet it could certainly do so. The Cabinet heads the agencies created by Congress. This example of OSHA is extremely concerning. The Supreme Court already gutted the powers of the EPA to write regulations to stem pollution and make American lives healthier and now they are simply moving on to the next victim.

THIS IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT in the USA. They are not allowed to destroy legislation demanded by the people to improve their lives. It is no different than Roe v. Wade, it was legal precedent for decades and a radical conservative court came in and destroyed a legal precedent that saved women's lives and gave them control over their reproductive outcomes.

This is an EXTREMELY political court and they are way out of line. Not just a little out of line, but, way out of line. The Supreme Court is not to empower a dictator either. That is exactly what they did in the case of an immunity plea by Trump. It is a lot of nonsense to believe the USA Supreme Court is appropriate in empowering dictatorial rule over the country.

...“The question whether the Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s broad authority is consistent with our constitutional structure is undeniably important,” Thomas wrote.

He noted that other conservatives on the Supreme Court — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh — have over the years expressed an interest in “reconsidering this Court’s approach” to Congress’s delegations of power to federal agencies....

Excuse me? Who do they think they are? The power of this government belongs to the people that elect legislators to act on their behalf. The Supreme Court is unelected and does not have the right to rewrite the USA Constitution.

Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices. It also established the lower federal court system.

The Supreme Court interprets the law AS WRITTTEN to determine if the FACTS of the case before apply. The best court to address the sincere definition of the Supreme Court was the Burger Court (click here) that was the first court to uphold the INDIVIDUAL rights of Americans as opposed to generalized social engagement. 

...Although the Supreme Court (click here) may hear an appeal on any question of law provided it has jurisdiction, it usually does not hold trials. Instead, the Court's task is to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied....

One of the decisions of the Burger Court improved freedom of speech when it provided a clear understanding that prior restraint was not constitutional. 

...In the 1970s, the press was “subjected to a judicial battering that has been more serious and more fundamental, than the assaults that were mounted in more parlous days,” an attorney representing press interests asserted in a 1979 weekly magazine article.

Free to reply to such criticism when he retired from the Court in 1981, Associate Justice Potter Stewart said that the notion that “traditional protections are being ignored or disregarded or destroyed is a completely fallacious thought.”

Controversy over the Vietnam was at a peak when, on June 13, 1971, the New York Times began publishing installments of a secret, illegally obtained document concerning the United States’ conduct of the war. The government saw grave dangers to U.S. security in the publication of what became known as the Pentagon Papers, and sought injunctions to prevent both the Times and the Washington Post from further dissemination of the stolen information. Within two weeks the case reached the Supreme Court, which heard arguments on June 26 and announced its decision on June 30.

Once again, as it has through the years, the Court refused to countenance restraint prior to publication. In a brief decision, the Court observed that any system of prior restraint bears “a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Each Justice filed a separate opinion; there were three dissents. Among the majority, Justice William J. Brennan denounced prior restraint in nearly absolute terms, but he conceded that in wartime there might be a “single, extremely narrow” class of exceptions. The three dissenters emphasized the “almost irresponsibly feverish” speed with which the case was disposed of; according to Justice John M. Harlan, it should have been conducted under full ground rules.

The Pentagon Papers were published and were a journalistic sensation at home and abroad; but the war in Vietnam went on.

Do news reporters have a right to confidentiality of their sources under the First Amendment? They argue that unless they can protect the identity of people who give them information under promises of secrecy, the sources will dry up....

The Burger Court opened society to highways of freedom of the individual. It was right to do so as freedom is a very basic concept of a democracy. When civilized avenues of freedom are opened, the USA economy thrives on inclusiveness and the culture that it brings. Closing down freedoms is anti-Constitutional and detrimental to the USA economy. All one has to do is look to the oppression and neediness of the Red States to realize how true that is.

This is from the Truman Library (click here). It is obvious that the Executive Branch is directly responsible for carrying out the laws through regulation and enforcement. This court is detrimental to the well being of the people of the United States of America.

A PRESIDENT CAN

 . . .make treaties with the approval of the Senate.

veto bills and sign bills.

represent our nation in talks with foreign countries.

enforce the laws that Congress passes.

act as Commander-in-Chief during a war.

call out troops to protect our nation against an attack.

make suggestions about things that should be new laws.

lead his political party.

entertain foreign guests.

recognize foreign countries.

grant pardons.

nominate Cabinet members and Supreme Court Justices and other high officials.

appoint ambassadors.

talk directly to the people about problems.

represent the best interest of all the people

A PRESIDENT CANNOT

 . . .make laws.

declare war.

decide how federal money will be spent.

interpret laws.

choose Cabinet members or Supreme Court Justices without Senate approval.