Anonymous #1 1d

Being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian is so stupid 💀

14

Anonymous #1 1d

Fog doesn't give you cancer

17

Anonymous #3 1d

EPA** but you get the point

-3

Anonymous #3 1d

Elaborate on why you think they’re given too much power lol

9

Anonymous #2 1d

Chevron deference specifically is an example of them being given too much power, because they were given the ability to rewrite laws without congressional oversight

-3

Anonymous #3 1d

This framing is silly tho, Congress can’t possibly predict every single scientific advancement in the future after passing a law, when Congress passes something broad like “ensure safe air quality” to the EPA, it is purposefully leaving gaps for scientists at the EPA to fill based on their expertise and subject knowledge, this is implementing the law EXACTLY how Congress intended

11

Anonymous #2 1d

Yeah but we aren't governed by the intent of lawmakers, we are governed by the actual word of the law.

-3

Anonymous #2 1d

Congress can also already call in expert witnesses for the exact reason of being able to address specialization like scientific research into a particular field

-1

Anonymous #2 1d

As for the "predict every single scientific advancement" thing, I don't think Congress should be legislating things they don't understand, let alone things they can't predict.

-2

Anonymous #3 1d

First, on “the actual word of the law.” Language is inherently limited, and words alone cannot account for reality without context. Laws are full of necessarily broad words like “safe,” “feasible,” or “significant risk.” What constitutes “safe” drinking water isn’t purely a linguistic question that a judge can solve by looking through a dictionary. It’s a scientific and empirical calculation that will change over time.

5

Anonymous #3 1d

If a law says the government must regulate “stationary sources of air pollution,” does that include a newly invented type of factory that didn’t exist when the law was written? Deciding what the actual word applies to inherently requires interpretation. If a trained agency staffed by scientists doesn’t make that call based on data, an unelected judge will based on vibes and personal ideology.

3

Anonymous #2 1d

It is just a linguistic question, sure the way we measure it might change, but it's still the same idea

-1

Anonymous #2 1d

I'd rather one judge who understands the law make that call than a board of a million different unelected bureaucrats

-1

Anonymous #3 1d

In terms of calling witnesses, bringing in an expert witness to testify for a couple hours while drafting a bill only provides a scientific insight for those couple hours. Things change and quickly. An expert witness can tell Congress that a certain chemical causes cancer. But that singular witness can’t spend the next 30 years running a lab, monitoring thousands of factories, updating safety thresholds based on new medical data, or enforcing violation penalties.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

The EPA isn't doing the ladder either

1

Anonymous #3 1d

On your ‘predicting scientific advancement’ point, expecting 535 politicians to understand the complexities of the molecular biology of new drugs, the engineering specifications of nuclear power plants, and the coding projects behind AI is completely unrealistic. If Congress couldn’t pass these laws, no Clean Air Act, no Federal Aviation Administration. The government has to wait for a new crisis, and then they wait a couple years to debate fixes before passing it. This just benefits corporation

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Well even if you get a bunch of people who perfectly understand all 3, you would then have to teach them law to make them even partially as fit as a judge to write law

1

Anonymous #2 1d

I trust the Judge at least understands the law. If they can also get some base level understanding of new drugs, nuclear plants, and AI then they can understand the implications of these issues and vote on or decide them more fairly

1

Anonymous #3 1d

Except deciding what’s “safe” or “significant” isn’t just linguistics, it’s an exercise of power. If a law says to remove “significant risks,” dictionaries don’t tell you if that means 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 1,000. Plus, if a judge decides that a risk isn’t linguistically significant, they are making a value judgment that prioritizes corporate profits over Americans’ safety. Letting a judge use a dictionary to override a scientist’s data-driven risk assessment is a dangerous distortion of the law.

1

Anonymous #3 1d

Also, preferring a single judge replaces a transparent, fact-based process with the unchecked personal ideology of a single person. All judges have biases. This idea just lets corporations judge shop to get friendly rulings on public safety. Plus those million bureaucrats don’t act in a vacuum. They report to a Cabinet Secretary who is appointed by a democratically elected President. If the public dislikes an agency’s rules, they can vote that President out of office. Judges are lifetime.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Well yeah "significant risk" is a contextual term, a risk that is completely insignificant in business could be very significant in medicine. "Safe" is usually pretty easy to determine, although "significant" is an adjective so it is again contextual.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

I don't think that using a single judge instantly makes it less transparent or fact based, or biased. That would depend on the judge

1

Anonymous #3 1d

More biased *

1

Anonymous #3 1d

That’s exactly my point, judges’ biases can differ, scientists try to eliminate bias altogether

1

Anonymous #2 1d

That's not true either, there are plenty of biases in the broad field of science and if you don't examine and account for them you won't get actual meaningful information

0

Anonymous #3 1d

That’s… that’s why these agencies exist…

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Also a biased judge is grounds for a mistrial and a judicial misconduct review so the judicial system is also trying to eliminate bias

0

Anonymous #2 1d

If they exist to support the judicial system and not to override it's power, why do they need the ability to rewrite laws?

0

Anonymous #3 1d

They… they don’t rewrite laws, your entire argument is bad faith 😭

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Idk what you call changing the wording of law

0

Anonymous #3 1d

Chevron deference never allowed executive agencies to change the actual wording of a law… That never happened silly

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Do you even know what deference is? Genuine question

0

Anonymous #3 1d

SCOTUS also overturned Chevron deference in 2024

1

Anonymous #2 1d

I know, took them long enough

0