This exactly, the 5th has the wildest and most twisted rulings to the point even the current Supreme Court has slapped a few down. Any reasonable person should be skeptical.
Well judging how bad a court is by how many times this Supreme Court reverses it isn’t the best metric, that would require the SC to be a fair and reasonable actor
This notion of devaluing the judiciary just because they don't judge the way you want is precisely how rule of law is eroded and societies eventually wither and die.
If you bothered to read the ruling, you would learn that the EPA specifically exempted ongoing processes as of and after 2015 under Section 5. This obviously exempts Inhance's fluorination process and is in line with Section 5's wording.
You would also learn that the EPA did not include fluorination among its list of things to regulate.
The EPA then cited those regulations under Section 5 to order Inhance to stop their decades-old fluorination process.
That is simply bullshit, that is pulling regulations out of thin air. Note that the court explicitly cites Section 6 is what the EPA should use to regulate PFOA, which the court explicitly says is by itself not wrong.
Any reasonable person should read the ruling and most likely be applauding the court for bringing a misguided executive agency into line, because the United States of America is a country governed by rule of law and the EPA in this instance did not follow due process.
No, devaluing the 5th because they regularly have completely insane takes is logical. They regularly twist legal frameworks for completely out of pocket takes. Criticizing government actors instead of blindly trusting every ruling without reading it is how democracy functions and grows. If you’re so upset over that, you probably need to re evaluate if you should live in a country where citizens get to distrust their government. That’s exactly the foundation of this one.
>This notion of devaluing the judiciary just because they don't judge the way you want is precisely how rule of law is eroded and societies eventually wither and die.
That's not what anyone said though. There's a difference between disagreeing and being unreasonable. Here, you too are being unreasonable because you've purposefully skipped past this in order to twist this even more politically.
ImJamal|1 year ago
https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_P...
alexsereno|1 year ago
gamblor956|1 year ago
If that's not the worst, how do you define worst?
Dalewyn|1 year ago
If you bothered to read the ruling, you would learn that the EPA specifically exempted ongoing processes as of and after 2015 under Section 5. This obviously exempts Inhance's fluorination process and is in line with Section 5's wording.
You would also learn that the EPA did not include fluorination among its list of things to regulate.
The EPA then cited those regulations under Section 5 to order Inhance to stop their decades-old fluorination process.
That is simply bullshit, that is pulling regulations out of thin air. Note that the court explicitly cites Section 6 is what the EPA should use to regulate PFOA, which the court explicitly says is by itself not wrong.
Any reasonable person should read the ruling and most likely be applauding the court for bringing a misguided executive agency into line, because the United States of America is a country governed by rule of law and the EPA in this instance did not follow due process.
alexsereno|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
freejazz|1 year ago
That's not what anyone said though. There's a difference between disagreeing and being unreasonable. Here, you too are being unreasonable because you've purposefully skipped past this in order to twist this even more politically.