Supreme Court halts enforcement of the EPA's plan to limit downwind pollution from power plants
The justices in a 5-4 vote rejected arguments by the Biden administration and Democratic-controlled states that the plan was cutting air pollution.
You're viewing a single thread.
Yeah dude I'm sure these old motherfuckers who dedicated their lives to ONE SINGLE ACADEMIC PURSUIT that is completely unrelated to science in just about every way, knows better than the EPA as to whether or not this plan is cutting air pollution.
Once again, we've encountered one of the many fatal flaws of our system: requiring every citizen and lawmaker to be an PhD level expert on literally every subject or else things break and people die. We're all the ones who have to abide by their dumbass decisions when it literally kills our children. Very cool.
I honestly have no idea what point you were trying to make here.
People without understanding of science are overriding people who understand it and have data to prove it. Ideology is trumping logic and it’s going to kill us.
Read the original post:
The justices in a 5-4 vote rejected arguments by the Biden administration and Democratic-controlled states that the plan was cutting air pollution.
The court—that is 9 old people who have studied nothing but jurisprudence for the last 3 or 4+ decades —have decided that they are better qualified than the Environmental Protection Agency and the hundreds of thousands of scientists, engineers, and experts that make it up, to judge whether or not an EPA plan to curb pollution actually curbs pollution.
This (and the other decision that just came down about the SEC) seems to indicate to me exactly how they plan to rule in the Chevron Deference case, and it does not look good.
My only (admittedly convoluted) hope is that they decided to choose a couple of the regulatory issues on this session's docket as a handout to the Captain Planet villains that make up the GOP, so they don't lose their shit when they uphold Chevron.
I'm not holding my breath.
It does seem absurd that this stuff is tried in front of supreme court justices.
Could we do something like you say that involves experts in the field weighing in on the pros and cons, and costs?
Is it that the supreme court justices shouldn't hear these cases at all, or that they are just so corrupt they can't rule fairly?
