LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
  • leweb
    +7

    Well, if the EPA doesn't do what they're supposed to do (protect the environment), someone has to force them.

    • NotWearingPants
      +4

      Yes. That would be Congress' job, not a group of idiot judges who want to make law rather than interpret it.

      • AdelleChattre (edited 3 months ago)
        +5

        Congress did its job. The court does its job. The Trump Administration's job is grifting. Who're the idiots again?

        • NotWearingPants
          +3

          Sacks full of money might have influence on political decisions? Tell me more.

          I see a lot of "might be harmful" and uncertainty about "safe" exposure levels. Seems like the regulatory agency, for reasons good or bad, made a judgement call. As they are mandated to do. And the court jesters are stepping in to say they made the wrong call, and must change it.

          This from the same clowns that believe they have executive power to set immigration policy and that a plainly unconstitutional executive order can't be overridden by an executive order they happen to disagree with.

          Those idiots.

          • leweb
            +8

            It’s called checks and balances

          • NotWearingPants
            +4
            @leweb -

            Certain elements of the Judiciary forget about the 'balances' part of that and go all-in on 'checks'. It's almost like they never really read the whole 'separation of powers' thing.

            In this case, they are, in effect, ruling an executive branch decision as unlawful. A decision that is purely within the bounds of the executive department that the legislation created. They are stepping on both the other branches of government because they don't like the decision.

            I expect SCOTUS will eventually slap them down.

            Again.

            Not an unusual occurrence for the 9th.

          • AdelleChattre (edited 3 months ago)
            +11
            @NotWearingPants -

            Straight up, that's not how this went down. For one thing, the Trump Administration is clearly as hungry for checks as anyone else in this story, for a given definition of 'checks.'

            While I get what you mean about the separation of powers, there're a few things you've got the wrong end of the stick about. I've worked on environmental law cases before the Ninth Circuit. You seem to think there are judges in that circuit aching to make new law. Take it from me, you'd have more luck finding a hooker that uses their real name, or a sheepdog you could tell to put two sheep in one pen and three in another. It's just not so. Nobody wants to be overturned. Nobody wants to be the squeaky wheel. Nobody wants to make new law. A few don't mind, but that's not how jurisprudence works.

            It's refreshing to see the faith you have in the EPA. At my age, one can become cynical. I used to believe in 'watchdog' agencies looking out for the public. That was a sick joke before they were captured by the industries they were supposed to regulate. Now they're run by the gangsters they were supposed to be protecting us from, it's not any prettier a picture. My faith wouldn't've made it past the climate change denial, the go-fuck-yourself-if-you-don't-like-it corruption, or Hell, Scott Pruitt's desk.

            Chlorpyrifos is objectively dangerous. The only confusion about that is the FUD you were throwing up a few comments ago. It's not safe. Are we agreed, there? Environmentalists sued EPA to ban it, because it's poison. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said in their August 10, 2015 writ of mandamus ordering EPA to essentially either show it was safe in food and agriculture or to ban it in accordance with the law:

            The panel held that EPA’s delay in responding to the administrative petition warranted the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. The panel held that the issuance of a writ of mandamus was necessary to end the EPA’s cycle of incomplete responses, missed deadlines, and unreasonable delay.

            Like I said, no circuit court was going to do this to fuck with Trump. This isn't a bunch of Marxists in black robes sitting around figuring out ways to piss you, in particular, off. This was in the Obama Administration. You remember him, the Kenyan usurper antichrist? This was about Obama's EPA, their regulatory capture, and their malfeasance of duty.

            You say Trump's EPA had good reasons to ignore science, to defy a court order, and to make sure that the most common pesticide used today remained this particular toxic Dow Chemical product. Tell you what: I can't think of any reasons those may be that aren't better reasons why they should have banned that shit. Can you?

            It's fairly obvious your animus toward that circuit has more to do with Trump's scapegoating Latin Americans and Muslims than it does this case. We're not going to make much progress on whether the most ignorant, racist, bigoted moron to occupy the White House since Wilson would be running concentration camps without his Jim Crow Roberts Court today, but we could at least get to seeing eye-to-eye on the facts of what's happened around him accepting bribes to keep chlorpyrifos in our food.

          • NotWearingPants
            +3
            @AdelleChattre -

            Nicely put. I need to read the decisions, rather than the news about them.

            For the record, I have zero faith in any government agency. It's all been bought and paid for.I'm at that advanced "cynical" age too.

            Organophosphates in general aren't safe, I recognize that. I've worked with them and other hazmat, including heavy metals, asbestos, and high-level carcinogens. For any of them, what level is "safe"? In some, the answer is zero. Is this pesticide in that category? I don't know, but there are apparently at least some questions about the methodology of the study in question to throw at least some doubt. Or excuse for doubt.

            You say Trump's EPA had good reasons to ignore science, to defy a court order, and to make sure that the most common pesticide used today remained this particular toxic Dow Chemical product. Tell you what: I can't think of any reasons those may be that aren't better reasons why they should have banned that shit. Can you?

            At least a couple of reasons, one being the previously stated. The other: What are the follow on consequences of banning this most commonly used pesticide?

            Economic costs? Is it going to cost a billion dollars per life saved? Or about $3.50...totally worth it.

            How good is the next best pesticide, and what dangers does it pose? It's obviously more expensive, and/or less effective, and/or has its own dangers.

            All pesticides are poison, that's how they work. I guess we could have full employment if we quit using them entirely and hired people to just pick the bugs off our tomatoes, but they would be a mite expensive at the store.

            'Mite", see what I did there?