4 ms·

The decision looks simple and correct to me, even with only reading from the very left biased BBC article. Despite your very right biased comment, I don't buy

The decision looks simple and correct to me, even with only reading from the very left biased BBC article. Despite your very right biased comment, I don't buy the idea that congress needs to write legislation down to specific policy details that might come up with every minute aspect of what is intending to be legislated. I don't think elected politicians are capable of being knowledgeable enough to give specific guidance on the broad range of issues necessary to govern the entire country. I mean, do you really want a US senator voting on what level of chemicals are allowed to be present in drinking water? Is that the goal here? Right now, the corporate legacy media are working hard to paint the false narrative that the current conservative justices are extreme partisan hacks. Don't fall for their deceptions. Do your own research. And if I do my own research and decide that the current conservative justices are extreme partisan hacks?

barsonme 4y ago
> do you really want a US senator voting on what level of chemicals are allowed to be present in drinking water? That’s not the level of granularity here. Using your hypothetical example about clean drinking water, Congress would need to delegate authority to EPA to regulate clean drinking water instead of EPA inferring or assuming it has that authority because of some other unrelated statute. Congress itself would not decide what a safe level of arsenic in drinking water is, EPA experts would.
- Goronmon 4y ago
  Congress itself would not decide what a safe level of arsenic is, EPA experts would. But as you said the EPA only would have the authority to regulate "clean drinking water", and since arsenic isn't drinking water, then the EPA would have no authority to regulate it unless Congress specifically says so.
  - barsonme 4y ago
    By “a safe level of arsenic” I meant “a safe level of arsenic in drinking water.” I’ve edited my comment to make this more clear.

barsonme 4y ago

> do you really want a US senator voting on what level of chemicals are allowed to be present in drinking water? That’s not the level of granularity here. Using your hypothetical example about clean drinking water, Congress would need to delegate authority to EPA to regulate clean drinking water instead of EPA inferring or assuming it has that authority because of some other unrelated statute. Congress itself would not decide what a safe level of arsenic in drinking water is, EPA experts would.

Goronmon 4y ago
Congress itself would not decide what a safe level of arsenic is, EPA experts would. But as you said the EPA only would have the authority to regulate "clean drinking water", and since arsenic isn't drinking water, then the EPA would have no authority to regulate it unless Congress specifically says so.
- barsonme 4y ago
  By “a safe level of arsenic” I meant “a safe level of arsenic in drinking water.” I’ve edited my comment to make this more clear.