What about slow driving? Cars are bigger anyway and if you for example need some time to slowly cross a red light one car per phase, it completly crashes the cities transport system. For a city like London that would work perfectly.
I imagine any reasonable traffic law would forbid drivers from impeding traffic like that. You might be able to do it somewhat discreetly, but it's still a matter of enforcement, and you can bet blue nonces will suddenly start caring about enforcing traffic laws.
Edit:
UK Road Traffic Act
If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place
without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons
using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.
That reminds me of when the 'freedom' convoy took their protest to a large city, and their protest ended up being just normal bad traffic. Obligatory Good Omens M25YT scene.
And this is why there is more drilling under Biden. Court orders to keep up drilling, court orders to allow exports and court orders stopping climate legislation. The courts being stacked by Trumps judges.
The judge, who was appointed by Donald Trump, wrote that the pause “is completely without reason or logic and is perhaps the epiphany of ideocracy [sic].”
Truly the person we should listen to when determining national climate policy. Ignore him.
Jesus fucking Christ the court system is just hammering away at my faith in the survivability of humanity under our current system over the past few days. I feel like curling up into a ball and crying at how hopeless this all feels.
Doesn't the Chevron ruling doom basically any standard originating from the executive? It's almost impossible to talk about planned regulations after the Supreme Court seized that power.
Yeah with Chevron gone this is fluff talk at this point. Nothing can be regulated without the Courts giving it an okay or Congress explicitly allowing it verbatim. The Loper Bright case paired with Relentless, Inc. has basically nullified novel regulatory authority without the Courts consenting.
The framers anticipated that courts would often confront statutory ambiguities and expected that courts would resolve them by exercising independent legal judgment
— Chief Justice Roberts (Loper Bright Enterprises, et al, v. Raimondo)
Additionally, Robert's indicated that the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 has always provided Judicial review of every regulation and that everything since that point must now be reviewed by the Courts.
Biden is indicating that he's going to produce a heat standard via OSHA which was formed in 1971, so OSHA's ability to even make that standard and potentially their full authority is under question now. OSHA isn't going to be doing jack crap for easily the next twenty years for the Courts to fully review their broad authority, unless SCOTUS overturns this judgement. For all we know, SCOTUS might hold OSHA to follow the exact letter of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 which would neuter them in a heartbeat. Luckily things like the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 which prohibits child labor in particular kinds of jobs will fall outside of that review and OSHA will still be able to enforce that kind of stuff since it's explicit that OSHA enforces any labor law prior to the 1970 act.
There is literally nothing any President going forward can promise without Congress completely having the President's back or the Justices agreeing with the President. Basically, without at least 2 out of 3 branches agreeing, literal nothing will happen. This is literally the setup nobody will enjoy and will cripple Federal Government for the foreseeable future without those rare instances where Congress and the President are of the same political party.
There is literally nothing any President going forward can promise without Congress completely having the President's back or the Justices agreeing with the President.
This was always true. The Affordable Care Act was met with repeated judicial challenges and survived thanks to judicial interpretation.
Regulatory rules have alsp always been subject to judicial review, especially after the public comment period. If an agency does not respond to comments, a rule can be struck down as arbitrary.
The difference now is that the courts can evaluate rules not based on scientific and administrative expertise but on ideology whether they adhere to the legal authority Congress granted them. Chevron deference implied that Congress gave agencies the legal authority to adapt to new situations. The misanthropes of the Supreme Court disagree because, for them, the Constitution is a dead document allowing adaptation to anything at all.
Lol you mean the corporate owned farmers who milk subsidies and your taxes while trying to convince you they're just small blue collar workers? Fuck farmers.
No he just saying that to elected. Once he does, this will be dropped. Only way people are going to avoid being murdered by heat stroke is by refusing to work
I mean, this is a possibility. But under the Biden administration a lot of workers rights were improved, I wouldn't be surprised if this one happens as well.
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
Newest