That's what we were trying to do before the Chevron ruling with varying degrees of success. Unfortunately the EPA is now potentially toothless along with any other agency - if Congress didn't make a law regarding a very specific regulation, then they can't do jack.WaffleTwineFaceoff wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 10:27 amI was identifying with the little old lady at the end of the clip. I think it was Rob Reiner's mother.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:58 am
I'm pretty sure the scene in the movie was about a fake orgasm. I used the EPA as a step further, and as a joke that didn't work, I guess.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything you say. I just wonder where the real expertise will come from, how it will be implemented, and how the courts will determine the manner in which it should be evaluated when confronted with competing interests and viewpoints. Only time will tell. But the reality that the world has very complicated problems will remain.
And I'm hoping the country that was able to put men on the moon, or at least create convincing video coverage faking a moonwalk, will be able to scrounge up some expertise. EPA is an example of a pretty good agency with what seems like some pretty good experts. So there is hope.
With the new ruling, the judicial branch gets to be the expert. So if you get a liberal judge interpreting a bump stock ban? That's your new expert. Judge interpreting whether a drug is safe or safe enough? That's your new expert. Will they bring in actual experts to testify? Who knows.
A lot of libertarians are in for a nasty surprise. They caught the car with this one, just like Roe v Wade.
Settled law for decades that both liberals and conservatives agreed upon - gone in a puff of smoke.