4 ms·

> But I don't think the court can say "there is no law allowing the government to do this, but since that is what you meant/that is what is good we will allow i

by ajross 3y ago

> But I don't think the court can say "there is no law allowing the government to do this, but since that is what you meant/that is what is good we will allow it." The court literally conceded that the EPA has the authority to regulate this material! (See section IV at the end of the decision: "We hasten to add that our ruling to this effect does not render the EPA powerless to regulate Inhance’s fluorination process. The agency can properly proceed [...]") That's what's so infuriating here. The court recognizes that the EPA did something within its regulatory purview and for public health reasons that the court doesn't dispute. And it undid it anyway, quite literally "endangering public health" in a legal sense, all because of a technicality that even the court recognizes isn't material. Again, there are plenty of reasonable ways to address the procedural fuckup without stepping in and stopping the EPA from doing what the EPA is designed to do.

fngjdflmdflg 3y ago
Nobody is arguing whether or not EPA has the authority to regualte the process in general. When I say, "there is no law allowing the government to do this," "this" is referring to regulating the process without conducting the appropriate cost-benefit analysis required for ongoing uses. >stepping in and stopping the EPA from doing what the EPA is designed to do. The EPA was designed to follow the Toxic Substances Control Act (among other laws).
- ajross 3y ago
  That's doing nothing but recapitulating the partisan nitpickery in the decision. My point was that the court had copious ways to enforce the technicalities under the law without maximally (!) interfering with the operation of the regulatory agency. They chose not to, not because of any genuine concern for the law but because they wanted to dick with the EPA for partisan reasons.
  - fngjdflmdflg 3y ago
    I'm not sure how following the law is partisan. Also your claim that the intent/spirit of the law is to not have the EPA perform a cost-benefit analysis before regulating these processes is wrong in any event. There is no way to claim that something explicitly written in the law is against its own spirit. I'm not familiar with European law but I bet even they would not accept that claim. If we could really decide all environmental laws based only on if they meet the goal of "regulating harmful materials for the benefit of public health and the environment" then congress would have just written that one line and be done with it. Instead they wrote that a cost-benefit analysis must be performed. That is the intent of the law because that is what it says. That is, if we can remove any statute based on some unwritten goal of what the statute should achieve, even if it is explicitly contradictory, then there is no point of the law at all.
Dalewyn 3y ago
The EPA themselves defined what is a "new use" as anything that wasn't ongoing as of and after 2015, and the court threw the book at them for being hypocrites with their own logic. The court is saying the EPA can and should use Section 6 to regulate the chemical and process in question, rather than bastardizing Section 5 to skirt due process.

by ajross 3y ago

fngjdflmdflg 3y ago

Nobody is arguing whether or not EPA has the authority to regualte the process in general. When I say, "there is no law allowing the government to do this," "this" is referring to regulating the process without conducting the appropriate cost-benefit analysis required for ongoing uses. >stepping in and stopping the EPA from doing what the EPA is designed to do. The EPA was designed to follow the Toxic Substances Control Act (among other laws).

ajross 3y ago
That's doing nothing but recapitulating the partisan nitpickery in the decision. My point was that the court had copious ways to enforce the technicalities under the law without maximally (!) interfering with the operation of the regulatory agency. They chose not to, not because of any genuine concern for the law but because they wanted to dick with the EPA for partisan reasons.
- fngjdflmdflg 3y ago
  I'm not sure how following the law is partisan. Also your claim that the intent/spirit of the law is to not have the EPA perform a cost-benefit analysis before regulating these processes is wrong in any event. There is no way to claim that something explicitly written in the law is against its own spirit. I'm not familiar with European law but I bet even they would not accept that claim. If we could really decide all environmental laws based only on if they meet the goal of "regulating harmful materials for the benefit of public health and the environment" then congress would have just written that one line and be done with it. Instead they wrote that a cost-benefit analysis must be performed. That is the intent of the law because that is what it says. That is, if we can remove any statute based on some unwritten goal of what the statute should achieve, even if it is explicitly contradictory, then there is no point of the law at all.

Dalewyn 3y ago

The EPA themselves defined what is a "new use" as anything that wasn't ongoing as of and after 2015, and the court threw the book at them for being hypocrites with their own logic. The court is saying the EPA can and should use Section 6 to regulate the chemical and process in question, rather than bastardizing Section 5 to skirt due process.