4 ms·

[flagged]

diogocp 2y ago
Judges wouldn't try to determine whether "ingesting lead is bad for you". They would determine whether the EPA is acting within the powers granted to it by Congress, which is what only judges are qualified to do.
- sixothree 2y ago
  [flagged]
- overlordalex 2y ago
  Yes and no. If congress has granted the EPA authority to regulate water to ensure it's not bad for you, then someone needs to determine what "bad for you" means. Previously, under Chevron, the courts would defer to the EPA as the experts to make that determination (with the understanding that congress could always pass more specific legislation if they felt the EPA was overstepping its granted authority) What the Supreme Court has said is deferring to the agency is going too far, and that if congress wants specific things regulated then it needs to be specific in it's legislation. Prima facie that makes sense, except for two major problems: congress is not productive enough in passing legislation, and congress are not the experts This means that when questions like this arise, it comes to the courts to be the ones who end up interpreting the statutes and making the determination on what "bad for you" means.
- joe_the_user 2y ago
  Not anymore. Or rather, judges have been given the power to make technical interpretations of law rather than just looking at the broad meaning of a law and leaving the technical interpretation to the agency. See the overturning of the Chevron decision. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...
  - WillPostForFood 2y ago
    Lead limits are in the text of the law, as they should be. So no need to cry wolf. Section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) establishes the definition for “lead free” as a weighted average of 0.25% lead calculated across the wetted surfaces of a pipe, pipe fitting, plumbing fitting, and fixture and 0.2% lead for solder and flux. The Act also provides a methodology for calculating the weighted average of wetted surfaces.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
HideousKojima 2y ago
That's a weird way to say "Only judges are allowed to determine if an agency is acting within its congressionally (democratically) established authority or if it's autocratically making sweeping regulatory changes beyond their democratically granted authority."
- PhasmaFelis 2y ago
  The price of freedom is ~~eternal vigilance~~ childhood brain damage.
  - relaxing 2y ago
    The children with permanent CNS damage can simply elect representatives in congress who are willing to act on their behalf, and then keep them in office across 3 election cycles until there is a supermajority able to enact change, and also hold the office of the president until the current SCOTUS majority retires/dies off.
  - HideousKojima 2y ago
    Then start a violent revolution to install a government that will mandate this and whatever else you want by fiat. But until then or otherwise, stop pretending that unelected officials making decisions beyond the authority delegated to them by elected officials is democratic.
    - PhasmaFelis 2y ago
      The thing in this particular case, as you know, is that we have a very obviously biased Supreme Court making decisions based on what's good for the corporations paying them, instead of either settled precedent or the intentions of the original legislators. The intended checks having failed, they're allowed to do this. You're old enough to know that "allowed to" does not automatically mean "morally right." EDIT: Actually, let's bottom-line it: Stop pretending that pointing out any flaws in a democratic government is anti-democratic. That's exactly backwards.
- rpnx 2y ago
DHPersonal 2y ago
I was wondering about this myself. The Loper Bright case (removing the Chevron deference) makes me wonder if the EPA can do much of anything to enforce this. I'm not that smart about laws and definitely not a lawyer, so I have no idea what I'm even questioning, really.

[flagged]

Judges wouldn't try to determine whether "ingesting lead is bad for you". They would determine whether the EPA is acting within the powers granted to it by Congress, which is what only judges are qualified to do.

sixothree 2y ago
[flagged]
overlordalex 2y ago
Yes and no. If congress has granted the EPA authority to regulate water to ensure it's not bad for you, then someone needs to determine what "bad for you" means. Previously, under Chevron, the courts would defer to the EPA as the experts to make that determination (with the understanding that congress could always pass more specific legislation if they felt the EPA was overstepping its granted authority) What the Supreme Court has said is deferring to the agency is going too far, and that if congress wants specific things regulated then it needs to be specific in it's legislation. Prima facie that makes sense, except for two major problems: congress is not productive enough in passing legislation, and congress are not the experts This means that when questions like this arise, it comes to the courts to be the ones who end up interpreting the statutes and making the determination on what "bad for you" means.
joe_the_user 2y ago
Not anymore. Or rather, judges have been given the power to make technical interpretations of law rather than just looking at the broad meaning of a law and leaving the technical interpretation to the agency. See the overturning of the Chevron decision. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...
- WillPostForFood 2y ago
  Lead limits are in the text of the law, as they should be. So no need to cry wolf. Section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) establishes the definition for “lead free” as a weighted average of 0.25% lead calculated across the wetted surfaces of a pipe, pipe fitting, plumbing fitting, and fixture and 0.2% lead for solder and flux. The Act also provides a methodology for calculating the weighted average of wetted surfaces.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

HideousKojima 2y ago

That's a weird way to say "Only judges are allowed to determine if an agency is acting within its congressionally (democratically) established authority or if it's autocratically making sweeping regulatory changes beyond their democratically granted authority."

PhasmaFelis 2y ago
The price of freedom is ~~eternal vigilance~~ childhood brain damage.
- relaxing 2y ago
  The children with permanent CNS damage can simply elect representatives in congress who are willing to act on their behalf, and then keep them in office across 3 election cycles until there is a supermajority able to enact change, and also hold the office of the president until the current SCOTUS majority retires/dies off.
- HideousKojima 2y ago
  Then start a violent revolution to install a government that will mandate this and whatever else you want by fiat. But until then or otherwise, stop pretending that unelected officials making decisions beyond the authority delegated to them by elected officials is democratic.
  - PhasmaFelis 2y ago
    The thing in this particular case, as you know, is that we have a very obviously biased Supreme Court making decisions based on what's good for the corporations paying them, instead of either settled precedent or the intentions of the original legislators. The intended checks having failed, they're allowed to do this. You're old enough to know that "allowed to" does not automatically mean "morally right." EDIT: Actually, let's bottom-line it: Stop pretending that pointing out any flaws in a democratic government is anti-democratic. That's exactly backwards.
rpnx 2y ago

DHPersonal 2y ago

I was wondering about this myself. The Loper Bright case (removing the Chevron deference) makes me wonder if the EPA can do much of anything to enforce this. I'm not that smart about laws and definitely not a lawyer, so I have no idea what I'm even questioning, really.