2 ms·

> Can the government also pursue Inhance for the cost of damages incurred by the continued use of PFAS based on new science? That's up to a judge, and if neces

> Can the government also pursue Inhance for the cost of damages incurred by the continued use of PFAS based on new science? That's up to a judge, and if necessary, the supreme court. Lotta people don't give enough credit to a system that has been around longer than most others in the world. There's a reason why everyone bets on the USA, there are contingencies for contingencies for contingencies. If it's important enough it will get done. On the flip side, imagine if a crony in the EPA could arbitrarily ban products from companies that didn't donate enough to a certain political party.

mandmandam 3y ago
Spicy take. The Supreme Court is clearly unhinged and monstrously outdated. Checks and balances? Lol. And the fish rots from the head. The abuses of lower courts and basically every regulatory body are well documented, and the accountability for corrupt judges is near-zero. Any institution which actually functions to protect people gets defunded. > There's a reason why everyone bets on the USA Because a dying empire is liable to do just about anything to get what it wants. Genocide, mass murder, arming your enemies, blackmail on a global scale, sanctions that murder millions, wrecking the climate, criminalizing abortion - nothing is off the table. Among many other reasons, that's why the world has viewed America as the number 1 threat to democracy, world peace, and stability every single year since 2003. "Everyone bets on the USA" to fuck shit up. That's not an exaggeration, though American's never believe it. It's not close either. We're number 1. Very few people trust American regulation; whether on food, chemicals, privacy or anything else. We are a global laughing stock; a stark example of why unregulated capitalism is so dangerous. There's a reason why America's water quality is among the worst in the developed world. There's a reason why we're mocked world-wide. There's a reason why our Presidential 'options' are the two most unpopular politicians in the country for three elections running, and it's not cause our system is working so well.
ajross 3y ago
> On the flip side, imagine if a crony in the EPA could arbitrarily ban products from companies that didn't donate enough to a certain political party. That's a silly strawman. In that case you'd sue for inappropriate regulation and win, just like this case, but better because you'd be right. The EPA's charter doesn't allow for political fundraising, it would be a trivial case to win. The complaint here isn't that courts shouldn't have the ability to oversee government agencies to make sure they're doing it right. The complaint here is that the fifth circuit is deliberately interfering with the operation of a government agency doing what it is supposed to do.
everforward 3y ago
Inhance's yearly revenue is $31M, at least from what I can find. Even if the government goes after them, they'll be worthless. They specialize in fluoridated products, I bet PFAS is most of what they make. So the stock will be worthless. Their physical holdings are likely to be... Primarily fluoridating equipment, which won't be worth much if we're banning those processes anyways. There won't be anything worth anything to seize, it'll be the government's mess to clean up. > On the flip side, imagine if a crony in the EPA could arbitrarily ban products from companies that didn't donate enough to a certain political party. That company would presumably sue under the argument that the EPA is only authorized to regulate chemicals harmful to the environment? It is a dramatically easier solution than "have Congress deal with it", which historically has meant "do nothing about it". Also, your "solution" just pushes that problem up a tier. What if Congress decides to target a political party? That one is much harder to fight in court too.
revscat 3y ago
[flagged]

mandmandam 3y ago

Spicy take. The Supreme Court is clearly unhinged and monstrously outdated. Checks and balances? Lol. And the fish rots from the head. The abuses of lower courts and basically every regulatory body are well documented, and the accountability for corrupt judges is near-zero. Any institution which actually functions to protect people gets defunded. > There's a reason why everyone bets on the USA Because a dying empire is liable to do just about anything to get what it wants. Genocide, mass murder, arming your enemies, blackmail on a global scale, sanctions that murder millions, wrecking the climate, criminalizing abortion - nothing is off the table. Among many other reasons, that's why the world has viewed America as the number 1 threat to democracy, world peace, and stability every single year since 2003. "Everyone bets on the USA" to fuck shit up. That's not an exaggeration, though American's never believe it. It's not close either. We're number 1. Very few people trust American regulation; whether on food, chemicals, privacy or anything else. We are a global laughing stock; a stark example of why unregulated capitalism is so dangerous. There's a reason why America's water quality is among the worst in the developed world. There's a reason why we're mocked world-wide. There's a reason why our Presidential 'options' are the two most unpopular politicians in the country for three elections running, and it's not cause our system is working so well.

ajross 3y ago

> On the flip side, imagine if a crony in the EPA could arbitrarily ban products from companies that didn't donate enough to a certain political party. That's a silly strawman. In that case you'd sue for inappropriate regulation and win, just like this case, but better because you'd be right. The EPA's charter doesn't allow for political fundraising, it would be a trivial case to win. The complaint here isn't that courts shouldn't have the ability to oversee government agencies to make sure they're doing it right. The complaint here is that the fifth circuit is deliberately interfering with the operation of a government agency doing what it is supposed to do.

everforward 3y ago

Inhance's yearly revenue is $31M, at least from what I can find. Even if the government goes after them, they'll be worthless. They specialize in fluoridated products, I bet PFAS is most of what they make. So the stock will be worthless. Their physical holdings are likely to be... Primarily fluoridating equipment, which won't be worth much if we're banning those processes anyways. There won't be anything worth anything to seize, it'll be the government's mess to clean up. > On the flip side, imagine if a crony in the EPA could arbitrarily ban products from companies that didn't donate enough to a certain political party. That company would presumably sue under the argument that the EPA is only authorized to regulate chemicals harmful to the environment? It is a dramatically easier solution than "have Congress deal with it", which historically has meant "do nothing about it". Also, your "solution" just pushes that problem up a tier. What if Congress decides to target a political party? That one is much harder to fight in court too.

revscat 3y ago

[flagged]