4 ms·

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," "th

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.

4 ms·

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," "th

by fngjdflmdflg 3y ago

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.