9 ms·

This exactly, the 5th has the wildest and most twisted rulings to the point even the current Supreme Court has slapped a few down. Any reasonable person should

This exactly, the 5th has the wildest and most twisted rulings to the point even the current Supreme Court has slapped a few down. Any reasonable person should be skeptical.

ImJamal 3y ago
For anybody interested the 5th isn't the worst court. Here is a summary https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_Present) https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_P...
- alexsereno 3y ago
  Well judging how bad a court is by how many times this Supreme Court reverses it isn’t the best metric, that would require the SC to be a fair and reasonable actor
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    You were the one who brought up that the rulings of the 5th were slapped down as some sort of argument about the quality of their rulings.
    - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
      The point was that SCOTUS is heavily partisan and still finds errors even they couldn't stomach. This was obvious.
    - alexsereno 3y ago
      Sorry for the confusion there, but I bought that up as a point that their rulings have been so bad that even the current, extremely partial SC, has been forced by the politics of the situation to slap down their rulings. It’s as if your own friends tell you you’ve gone a bit too far.
- gamblor956 3y ago
  The 5th Circuit has the highest percentage of cases reversed among circuits with more than 2 cases reviewed by SCOTUS. If that's not the worst, how do you define worst?
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    The 4th circuit has 100% reversal rating with over 2 cases reviewed.
Dalewyn 3y ago
This notion of devaluing the judiciary just because they don't judge the way you want is precisely how rule of law is eroded and societies eventually wither and die. If you bothered to read the ruling, you would learn that the EPA specifically exempted ongoing processes as of and after 2015 under Section 5. This obviously exempts Inhance's fluorination process and is in line with Section 5's wording. You would also learn that the EPA did not include fluorination among its list of things to regulate. The EPA then cited those regulations under Section 5 to order Inhance to stop their decades-old fluorination process. That is simply bullshit, that is pulling regulations out of thin air. Note that the court explicitly cites Section 6 is what the EPA should use to regulate PFOA, which the court explicitly says is by itself not wrong. Any reasonable person should read the ruling and most likely be applauding the court for bringing a misguided executive agency into line, because the United States of America is a country governed by rule of law and the EPA in this instance did not follow due process.
- alexsereno 3y ago
  No, devaluing the 5th because they regularly have completely insane takes is logical. They regularly twist legal frameworks for completely out of pocket takes. Criticizing government actors instead of blindly trusting every ruling without reading it is how democracy functions and grows. If you’re so upset over that, you probably need to re evaluate if you should live in a country where citizens get to distrust their government. That’s exactly the foundation of this one.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    >Criticizing government actors instead of blindly trusting every ruling without reading it is how democracy functions and grows. I did read the ruling[1], and unless the ruling is straight up perjury the EPA dropped the ball. Criticizing the court for not ruling the way you wanted, and presumably without reading the ruling because you're grossly disregarding their value, is unreasonable and erodes rule of law. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39876314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39876314 >a country where citizens get to distrust their government. And the court called out the government (the EPA) for being unworthy of trust in this instance.

This exactly, the 5th has the wildest and most twisted rulings to the point even the current Supreme Court has slapped a few down. Any reasonable person should be skeptical.

ImJamal 3y ago

For anybody interested the 5th isn't the worst court. Here is a summary https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_Present) https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_P...

alexsereno 3y ago
Well judging how bad a court is by how many times this Supreme Court reverses it isn’t the best metric, that would require the SC to be a fair and reasonable actor
- ImJamal 3y ago
  You were the one who brought up that the rulings of the 5th were slapped down as some sort of argument about the quality of their rulings.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    The point was that SCOTUS is heavily partisan and still finds errors even they couldn't stomach. This was obvious.
  - alexsereno 3y ago
    Sorry for the confusion there, but I bought that up as a point that their rulings have been so bad that even the current, extremely partial SC, has been forced by the politics of the situation to slap down their rulings. It’s as if your own friends tell you you’ve gone a bit too far.
gamblor956 3y ago
The 5th Circuit has the highest percentage of cases reversed among circuits with more than 2 cases reviewed by SCOTUS. If that's not the worst, how do you define worst?
- ImJamal 3y ago
  The 4th circuit has 100% reversal rating with over 2 cases reviewed.

Dalewyn 3y ago

This notion of devaluing the judiciary just because they don't judge the way you want is precisely how rule of law is eroded and societies eventually wither and die. If you bothered to read the ruling, you would learn that the EPA specifically exempted ongoing processes as of and after 2015 under Section 5. This obviously exempts Inhance's fluorination process and is in line with Section 5's wording. You would also learn that the EPA did not include fluorination among its list of things to regulate. The EPA then cited those regulations under Section 5 to order Inhance to stop their decades-old fluorination process. That is simply bullshit, that is pulling regulations out of thin air. Note that the court explicitly cites Section 6 is what the EPA should use to regulate PFOA, which the court explicitly says is by itself not wrong. Any reasonable person should read the ruling and most likely be applauding the court for bringing a misguided executive agency into line, because the United States of America is a country governed by rule of law and the EPA in this instance did not follow due process.

alexsereno 3y ago
No, devaluing the 5th because they regularly have completely insane takes is logical. They regularly twist legal frameworks for completely out of pocket takes. Criticizing government actors instead of blindly trusting every ruling without reading it is how democracy functions and grows. If you’re so upset over that, you probably need to re evaluate if you should live in a country where citizens get to distrust their government. That’s exactly the foundation of this one.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >Criticizing government actors instead of blindly trusting every ruling without reading it is how democracy functions and grows. I did read the ruling[1], and unless the ruling is straight up perjury the EPA dropped the ball. Criticizing the court for not ruling the way you wanted, and presumably without reading the ruling because you're grossly disregarding their value, is unreasonable and erodes rule of law. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39876314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39876314 >a country where citizens get to distrust their government. And the court called out the government (the EPA) for being unworthy of trust in this instance.