4 ms·

Do you want the legislative branch to be required to pass a new law every time a new dangerous chemical is found in baby food or elsewhere? There is a reason w

Do you want the legislative branch to be required to pass a new law every time a new dangerous chemical is found in baby food or elsewhere? There is a reason why the legislative branch gave the executive branch the power to regulate that. That is subject matter experts which are not interested in party politics do a better job at keeping up with relevant research.

db48x 4y ago
When Congress creates a government agency, they give it a specific list of jobs to do. Deciding which things are safe to put in baby food is the job of the FDA. The FDA is required to do that job, and no one else is allowed to. It would be unconstitutional for another agency to try. In this case, the job of reducing emissions from power plants was given to the EPA. They have been doing that job for some years, but recently they decided to go beyond their authority and require operators of coal plants to produce less electricity. The operators would only be allowed to generate more electricity if they built or bought solar or wind generation capacity instead. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress never gave them the authority to do that. They can require an operator to install filters and scrubbers that reduce the amount of pollution that they produce, but they cannot require them to serve fewer customers. Imagine if the FDA showed up at your favorite restaurant and told them that they were only allowed to serve 70% of their current customers, unless they served Hungarian borsht to the other 30%. Now it might be a good idea to burn less coal. Coal power has killed more people than any other source, iirc. We should replace all the coal plants with nuclear, in my opinion. But Congress never gave the EPA that job. Only Congress can do that job, or decide to delegate it to an agency. The EPA cannot unilaterally decide to take on any task they want merely because it seems like a good idea. They have to do the tasks Congress gave them, and nothing else.
- edmcnulty101 4y ago
  >The EPA cannot unilaterally decide to take on any task they want merely because it seems like a good idea Thank you for having a sane take on this. I hate how the media is trying to frame it as an environmental issue when it's actually a governmental power issue. If our elected officials want to give the executive branch that power they need to get to work and pass those laws.
  - db48x 4y ago
    One thing I liked about this Supreme Court decision is that it pointed out that part of the EPA’s unconstitutional new rule was a cap and trade system for CO₂, which Congress has tried half a dozen times in recent years to implement. Congress wasn’t able to find a system that satisfied enough people to get it passed, but the fact that they were trying so hard is proof that Congress did not think that this authority had been delegated to anyone.
- freemint 4y ago
  Doesn't requiring operators of coal plants to produce less electricity have the effect of reducing emissions from power plants a task that was given to the EPA. > Imagine if the FDA showed up at your favorite restaurant and told them that they were only allowed to serve 70% of their current customers, unless they served Hungarian borsht to the other 30%. I do not get the borsht part. If the FDA had the task to reduce diabetics and science shows it needs stop the creation of new diabetics by 20xx. If we knew that a certain food chains menu causes diabetics at disproportionate rate (and there is no way to reduce that that restaurant can stay up after 20xx because thermodynamics) so that those goals would be reachable only by reducing that share in the market why can't the FDA enforce a diabetics creation rate limit by limiting the amount of diabetes causing food at worst diabetes creators under the mandate educe diabetics? I think that's what they do. That they have an additional incentive that selling low diabetic food increases the quota for selling high diabetics food, doesn't change that they are still reducing total diabetics creation rate.
  - edmcnulty101 4y ago
    What if there was questionable science being used to back up the claim that this restaurant causes diabetes? What if a competing restraunt paid off the people in govt to put this company out of business? What about other other competing interests besides the FDAs mission? There's a bunch of real life questions here. As long as humans are involved it's never as black and white as: this causes X do we can shut it down with no other complications.
    - freemint 4y ago
      > What if there was questionable science being used to back up the claim that this restaurant causes diabetes? There processes in involving pressure from domain experts. There are processes within the executive branch to address those. If those fail the legislative branch can update those process. It that fails the legislative branch can intervene with in that specific issue with new legislation. Counter question: What makes you think the supreme court is even vaguely qualified to settle whether science is questionable? > What if a competing restraunt paid off the people in govt to put this company out of business? We have legal procedures for that that don't involve the supreme court. Even the tobacco industry eventually fell to that. > What about other other competing interests besides the FDAs mission? There are processes with in a republic to fix that. > There's a bunch of real life questions here. Yes and they have been solved well enough for ages. > As long as humans are involved it's never as black and white as: this causes X do we can shut it down with no other complications. Literally no-one claims that. But what is claimed that if the consequences are weight turning of coal looks a lot less black then leaving coal running.
edmcnulty101 4y ago
> Do you want the legislative branch to be required to pass a new law every time a new dangerous chemical is found in baby food or elsewhere? I don't want the legislative branch to pass ANY laws. We literally have too many laws to count already. I want the FDA to EDUCATE people about the new dangerous chemical and THATS IT. Let people read the literature or put a warning on the box and let the free market decide.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  > Let people read the literature or put a warning on the box and let the free market decide. A quite naive take. We would still be covering our houses with asbestos and adding lead to gasoline, if we let the _people_ decide individually what to do.
  - edmcnulty101 4y ago
    See I think your take is naive. Treat people like children and let the government decide what's best for them. </s>That's always worked out great</s> I prefer treating people like adults and letting them make their own decisions and keeping the government around to educate people not to control them.
    - manuelabeledo 4y ago
      > See I think your take is naive. In a world where corporations would rather literally kill their customers in order to generate gains for their shareholders, saying that regulations are put in place to "control" citizens, is the obvious naive take. There are hundreds of examples of corporations choosing profit over humanity, famously recent ones are the opioid crisis and climate change. Let me know how you would fix these issues with just "education".
      - edmcnulty101 4y ago
        Opioid crisis = media generated crisis of the month: More people die every year of alcohol and cigarette related illness than opioids. Theres no crisis. Climate change = media generated: it's been way hotter on earth that it is today in the earths history. Were actually at one of the cooler times in earths history, in between ice ages. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte... > where corporations would rather literally kill their customers in order to generate gains for their shareholders Killing your customers seems like a poor economic decision.

db48x 4y ago

When Congress creates a government agency, they give it a specific list of jobs to do. Deciding which things are safe to put in baby food is the job of the FDA. The FDA is required to do that job, and no one else is allowed to. It would be unconstitutional for another agency to try. In this case, the job of reducing emissions from power plants was given to the EPA. They have been doing that job for some years, but recently they decided to go beyond their authority and require operators of coal plants to produce less electricity. The operators would only be allowed to generate more electricity if they built or bought solar or wind generation capacity instead. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress never gave them the authority to do that. They can require an operator to install filters and scrubbers that reduce the amount of pollution that they produce, but they cannot require them to serve fewer customers. Imagine if the FDA showed up at your favorite restaurant and told them that they were only allowed to serve 70% of their current customers, unless they served Hungarian borsht to the other 30%. Now it might be a good idea to burn less coal. Coal power has killed more people than any other source, iirc. We should replace all the coal plants with nuclear, in my opinion. But Congress never gave the EPA that job. Only Congress can do that job, or decide to delegate it to an agency. The EPA cannot unilaterally decide to take on any task they want merely because it seems like a good idea. They have to do the tasks Congress gave them, and nothing else.

edmcnulty101 4y ago
>The EPA cannot unilaterally decide to take on any task they want merely because it seems like a good idea Thank you for having a sane take on this. I hate how the media is trying to frame it as an environmental issue when it's actually a governmental power issue. If our elected officials want to give the executive branch that power they need to get to work and pass those laws.
- db48x 4y ago
  One thing I liked about this Supreme Court decision is that it pointed out that part of the EPA’s unconstitutional new rule was a cap and trade system for CO₂, which Congress has tried half a dozen times in recent years to implement. Congress wasn’t able to find a system that satisfied enough people to get it passed, but the fact that they were trying so hard is proof that Congress did not think that this authority had been delegated to anyone.
freemint 4y ago
Doesn't requiring operators of coal plants to produce less electricity have the effect of reducing emissions from power plants a task that was given to the EPA. > Imagine if the FDA showed up at your favorite restaurant and told them that they were only allowed to serve 70% of their current customers, unless they served Hungarian borsht to the other 30%. I do not get the borsht part. If the FDA had the task to reduce diabetics and science shows it needs stop the creation of new diabetics by 20xx. If we knew that a certain food chains menu causes diabetics at disproportionate rate (and there is no way to reduce that that restaurant can stay up after 20xx because thermodynamics) so that those goals would be reachable only by reducing that share in the market why can't the FDA enforce a diabetics creation rate limit by limiting the amount of diabetes causing food at worst diabetes creators under the mandate educe diabetics? I think that's what they do. That they have an additional incentive that selling low diabetic food increases the quota for selling high diabetics food, doesn't change that they are still reducing total diabetics creation rate.
- edmcnulty101 4y ago
  What if there was questionable science being used to back up the claim that this restaurant causes diabetes? What if a competing restraunt paid off the people in govt to put this company out of business? What about other other competing interests besides the FDAs mission? There's a bunch of real life questions here. As long as humans are involved it's never as black and white as: this causes X do we can shut it down with no other complications.
  - freemint 4y ago
    > What if there was questionable science being used to back up the claim that this restaurant causes diabetes? There processes in involving pressure from domain experts. There are processes within the executive branch to address those. If those fail the legislative branch can update those process. It that fails the legislative branch can intervene with in that specific issue with new legislation. Counter question: What makes you think the supreme court is even vaguely qualified to settle whether science is questionable? > What if a competing restraunt paid off the people in govt to put this company out of business? We have legal procedures for that that don't involve the supreme court. Even the tobacco industry eventually fell to that. > What about other other competing interests besides the FDAs mission? There are processes with in a republic to fix that. > There's a bunch of real life questions here. Yes and they have been solved well enough for ages. > As long as humans are involved it's never as black and white as: this causes X do we can shut it down with no other complications. Literally no-one claims that. But what is claimed that if the consequences are weight turning of coal looks a lot less black then leaving coal running.

edmcnulty101 4y ago

> Do you want the legislative branch to be required to pass a new law every time a new dangerous chemical is found in baby food or elsewhere? I don't want the legislative branch to pass ANY laws. We literally have too many laws to count already. I want the FDA to EDUCATE people about the new dangerous chemical and THATS IT. Let people read the literature or put a warning on the box and let the free market decide.

manuelabeledo 4y ago
> Let people read the literature or put a warning on the box and let the free market decide. A quite naive take. We would still be covering our houses with asbestos and adding lead to gasoline, if we let the _people_ decide individually what to do.
- edmcnulty101 4y ago
  See I think your take is naive. Treat people like children and let the government decide what's best for them. </s>That's always worked out great</s> I prefer treating people like adults and letting them make their own decisions and keeping the government around to educate people not to control them.
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    > See I think your take is naive. In a world where corporations would rather literally kill their customers in order to generate gains for their shareholders, saying that regulations are put in place to "control" citizens, is the obvious naive take. There are hundreds of examples of corporations choosing profit over humanity, famously recent ones are the opioid crisis and climate change. Let me know how you would fix these issues with just "education".
    - edmcnulty101 4y ago
      Opioid crisis = media generated crisis of the month: More people die every year of alcohol and cigarette related illness than opioids. Theres no crisis. Climate change = media generated: it's been way hotter on earth that it is today in the earths history. Were actually at one of the cooler times in earths history, in between ice ages. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte... > where corporations would rather literally kill their customers in order to generate gains for their shareholders Killing your customers seems like a poor economic decision.