4 ms·

>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 an

>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. That's not what anyone said though. There's a difference between disagreeing and being unreasonable. Here, you too are being unreasonable because you've purposefully skipped past this in order to twist this even more politically.

Dalewyn 3y ago
[flagged]
- HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
  > Most of the people here are white knighting for the EPA, throwing down the courts, villifying corporations, and it's fairly clear they haven't actually read the ruling either. Why do you think you can brazenly lie to people like this? It's not going to work and it's not acceptable.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Thank you for demonstrating my point.
    - HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
      You have not answered the very straightforward question.
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        I only see a baseless accusation to which I am not going to waste my time responding.
- freejazz 3y ago
  You responded to a specific post about a specific thing with a made-up thing, that wasn't what was being discussed. That's why you are unreasonable. Here now, again, you are doing it by twisting your post to now be about everything else, except the actual post you responded to, which had a pretty specific and reasonable criticism of the 5th circuit. This most recent post by you screams of projection, where you instead just insist the 5th circuit is "reasonable" just because you don't like why people disagree with them. Apparently the irony of this is beyond you.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    >you instead just insist the 5th circuit is "reasonable" just because you don't like why people disagree with them. No, I find the court's ruling here reasonable because I read through the ruling and the included timeline of events and found their conclusion makes sense. That is quite different from handwaving away their authority because you just don't like their rulings. You could also read the ruling like I did and try arguing what about it is "wild" and "twisted" as the comment I replied to put it, an unreasonable sentiment also shared by most of the people in this thread. For starters, do most of the people here realize the court affirms the EPA's right to regulate PFOA and does not find fault with the core reasoning itself? If this court is "wild" and "twisted", is it "wild" and "twisted" for the EPA to regulate PFOA properly under Section 6?
    - freejazz 3y ago
      > No, I find the court's ruling here reasonable because I read through the ruling and the included timeline of events and found their conclusion makes sense. That is quite different from handwaving away their authority because you just don't like their rulings. But the post was about the 5th Circuit in general, which has come out with a number of incredibly unreasonable rulings. That was the criticism, that the 5th Circuit shouldn't inherently be trusted as reasonable just because. >You could also read the ruling like I did and try arguing what about it is "wild" and "twisted" as the comment I replied to put it, an unreasonable sentiment also shared by most of the people in this thread. I feel like you haven't been engaging with what I actually wrote with if you keep arguing this.

Dalewyn 3y ago

[flagged]

HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
> Most of the people here are white knighting for the EPA, throwing down the courts, villifying corporations, and it's fairly clear they haven't actually read the ruling either. Why do you think you can brazenly lie to people like this? It's not going to work and it's not acceptable.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Thank you for demonstrating my point.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
    You have not answered the very straightforward question.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      I only see a baseless accusation to which I am not going to waste my time responding.
freejazz 3y ago
You responded to a specific post about a specific thing with a made-up thing, that wasn't what was being discussed. That's why you are unreasonable. Here now, again, you are doing it by twisting your post to now be about everything else, except the actual post you responded to, which had a pretty specific and reasonable criticism of the 5th circuit. This most recent post by you screams of projection, where you instead just insist the 5th circuit is "reasonable" just because you don't like why people disagree with them. Apparently the irony of this is beyond you.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >you instead just insist the 5th circuit is "reasonable" just because you don't like why people disagree with them. No, I find the court's ruling here reasonable because I read through the ruling and the included timeline of events and found their conclusion makes sense. That is quite different from handwaving away their authority because you just don't like their rulings. You could also read the ruling like I did and try arguing what about it is "wild" and "twisted" as the comment I replied to put it, an unreasonable sentiment also shared by most of the people in this thread. For starters, do most of the people here realize the court affirms the EPA's right to regulate PFOA and does not find fault with the core reasoning itself? If this court is "wild" and "twisted", is it "wild" and "twisted" for the EPA to regulate PFOA properly under Section 6?
  - freejazz 3y ago
    > No, I find the court's ruling here reasonable because I read through the ruling and the included timeline of events and found their conclusion makes sense. That is quite different from handwaving away their authority because you just don't like their rulings. But the post was about the 5th Circuit in general, which has come out with a number of incredibly unreasonable rulings. That was the criticism, that the 5th Circuit shouldn't inherently be trusted as reasonable just because. >You could also read the ruling like I did and try arguing what about it is "wild" and "twisted" as the comment I replied to put it, an unreasonable sentiment also shared by most of the people in this thread. I feel like you haven't been engaging with what I actually wrote with if you keep arguing this.