3 ms·

> Unlike the hyperbolic coverage in the press - the decision did not say that judges are now responsible for making regulation, rather than experts in regulator

> Unlike the hyperbolic coverage in the press - the decision did not say that judges are now responsible for making regulation, rather than experts in regulatory agencies. They said EXACTLY that. There is absolutely NOTHING redeeming in the SCOTUS decision. Prior to that, courts were required to defer to the agencies for the matter of facts. E.g. if PFAS is a pollutant. Now everyone can just say: "I don't belive PFAS is a pollutant, so there's no need to clean it up". And this will have to be argued all the way up to the SCOTUS.

xyst 2y ago
By the time it gets to the SCOTUS, many people will die. Generations of people impacted in polluted areas. It’s a shit situation.
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
You can't just say "I don't believe PFAS is a pollutant", you have to convince a judge of that, and the EPA gets to make the opposite case. Then the judge hears everyone's arguments and makes a decision, because that's what judges do.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > You can't just say "I don't believe PFAS is a pollutant", you have to convince a judge of that It's not like the Fifth Circuit judges routinely ignore and misquote plain facts, yeah? The next issue is that you'll be pitting boring government bureaucrats against highly paid legal teams that can outdazzle pretty much anyone. But even putting all of this aside, the rulemaking process itself is not fast by design because it gives all the interested parties plenty of time to interact with the agencies. A typical rule takes about 3 years to finalize. Then you can delay it for 4-5 years by simply going through the court process as slowly as you can. And if you get a split judgement by going into the la-la land of East Texas judges and in parallel by suing in another location, you can drag it out even more by waiting on the SCOTUS! So you're looking at a _decade_ between a rule and its implementation. But wait, there's even more! You can then question the enforcement actions in a separate lawsuit! You won't be able to drag it out as much, but another 2-3 years is a possibility. Some libertardians suggested: "Hey! We now can sue government agencies for allowing Teh Evul Glyphosate, and GMOs!". Nope, you can't. You don't have standing for that. It's a strictly pro-polluters ruling.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > It's not like the Fifth Circuit judges routinely ignore and misquote plain facts, yeah? As opposed to elected officials, who... wait. > The next issue is that you'll be pitting boring government bureaucrats against highly paid legal teams that can outdazzle pretty much anyone. The US government is the largest bureaucracy in the world with an annual budget larger than that of any private corporation, employs more lawyers than anyone else, and those lawyers' average compensation breaks six figures. > A typical rule takes about 3 years to finalize. Then you can delay it for 4-5 years by simply going through the court process as slowly as you can. About the first thing a court is going to do is rule on an injunction, and when the company loses on that, drawing it out isn't going to help them because they can't proceed unless and until they win in court. > And if you get a split judgement by going into the la-la land of East Texas judges and in parallel by suing in another location, you can drag it out even more by waiting on the SCOTUS! This doesn't really have anything to do with a circuit split, except insofar as the SCOTUS is more likely to take the case if there is one. > "Hey! We now can sue government agencies for allowing Teh Evul Glyphosate, and GMOs!". Nope, you can't. You don't have standing for that. What happens if you sue the polluters?
    - cyberax 2y ago
      > As opposed to elected officials, who... wait. Most of the regulatory agencies are _not_ made of the elected officials. It's career bureaucrats, who can't be easily fired. Positions appointed by elected officials are called "political", and they have limited power. > The US government is the largest bureaucracy in the world with an annual budget larger than that of any private corporation, employs more lawyers than anyone else, and those lawyers' average compensation breaks six figures. LOL. I see you have never interacted with the actual agencies. They are on about as shoe-string budget as possible. Most lawyers go to work for the Fed if they want loan forgiveness and/or want a steady job with guaranteed benefits. > About the first thing a court is going to do is rule on an injunction They are overwhelmingly granted even now, when companies can only question the _procedure_ and not the findings of facts. A company just needs to show that the regulation will cause them great harm if not stayed pending the outcome. > This doesn't really have anything to do with a circuit split, except insofar as the SCOTUS is more likely to take the case if there is one. If a company is operating in multiple circuits, it's pretty common to ask for injunction pending on the outcome of the trial in other circuits and the eventual appeal. > What happens if you sue the polluters? Usually nothing. In general, you simply don't have standing. You have to show a real material injury, and something like "50% greater risk of bladder cancer" is _not_ it.

xyst 2y ago

By the time it gets to the SCOTUS, many people will die. Generations of people impacted in polluted areas. It’s a shit situation.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

You can't just say "I don't believe PFAS is a pollutant", you have to convince a judge of that, and the EPA gets to make the opposite case. Then the judge hears everyone's arguments and makes a decision, because that's what judges do.

cyberax 2y ago
> You can't just say "I don't believe PFAS is a pollutant", you have to convince a judge of that It's not like the Fifth Circuit judges routinely ignore and misquote plain facts, yeah? The next issue is that you'll be pitting boring government bureaucrats against highly paid legal teams that can outdazzle pretty much anyone. But even putting all of this aside, the rulemaking process itself is not fast by design because it gives all the interested parties plenty of time to interact with the agencies. A typical rule takes about 3 years to finalize. Then you can delay it for 4-5 years by simply going through the court process as slowly as you can. And if you get a split judgement by going into the la-la land of East Texas judges and in parallel by suing in another location, you can drag it out even more by waiting on the SCOTUS! So you're looking at a _decade_ between a rule and its implementation. But wait, there's even more! You can then question the enforcement actions in a separate lawsuit! You won't be able to drag it out as much, but another 2-3 years is a possibility. Some libertardians suggested: "Hey! We now can sue government agencies for allowing Teh Evul Glyphosate, and GMOs!". Nope, you can't. You don't have standing for that. It's a strictly pro-polluters ruling.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > It's not like the Fifth Circuit judges routinely ignore and misquote plain facts, yeah? As opposed to elected officials, who... wait. > The next issue is that you'll be pitting boring government bureaucrats against highly paid legal teams that can outdazzle pretty much anyone. The US government is the largest bureaucracy in the world with an annual budget larger than that of any private corporation, employs more lawyers than anyone else, and those lawyers' average compensation breaks six figures. > A typical rule takes about 3 years to finalize. Then you can delay it for 4-5 years by simply going through the court process as slowly as you can. About the first thing a court is going to do is rule on an injunction, and when the company loses on that, drawing it out isn't going to help them because they can't proceed unless and until they win in court. > And if you get a split judgement by going into the la-la land of East Texas judges and in parallel by suing in another location, you can drag it out even more by waiting on the SCOTUS! This doesn't really have anything to do with a circuit split, except insofar as the SCOTUS is more likely to take the case if there is one. > "Hey! We now can sue government agencies for allowing Teh Evul Glyphosate, and GMOs!". Nope, you can't. You don't have standing for that. What happens if you sue the polluters?
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > As opposed to elected officials, who... wait. Most of the regulatory agencies are _not_ made of the elected officials. It's career bureaucrats, who can't be easily fired. Positions appointed by elected officials are called "political", and they have limited power. > The US government is the largest bureaucracy in the world with an annual budget larger than that of any private corporation, employs more lawyers than anyone else, and those lawyers' average compensation breaks six figures. LOL. I see you have never interacted with the actual agencies. They are on about as shoe-string budget as possible. Most lawyers go to work for the Fed if they want loan forgiveness and/or want a steady job with guaranteed benefits. > About the first thing a court is going to do is rule on an injunction They are overwhelmingly granted even now, when companies can only question the _procedure_ and not the findings of facts. A company just needs to show that the regulation will cause them great harm if not stayed pending the outcome. > This doesn't really have anything to do with a circuit split, except insofar as the SCOTUS is more likely to take the case if there is one. If a company is operating in multiple circuits, it's pretty common to ask for injunction pending on the outcome of the trial in other circuits and the eventual appeal. > What happens if you sue the polluters? Usually nothing. In general, you simply don't have standing. You have to show a real material injury, and something like "50% greater risk of bladder cancer" is _not_ it.