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.
>Criticizing government actors instead of blindly trusting every ruling without reading it is how democracy functions and grows.
I did read the ruling[1], and unless the ruling is straight up perjury the EPA dropped the ball.
Criticizing the court for not ruling the way you wanted, and presumably without reading the ruling because you're grossly disregarding their value, is unreasonable and erodes rule of law.
Yes, the ruling is straight up judicial perjury. It deliberately misstates the statutory language to create a regulatory conflict where non exists.
Indeed, the court is taking a non-binding FAQ on the EPA website, and treating that as more legally constraining on the EPA than the actual regulations they issue. That's f'ing ridiculous.
And to make things more ridiculous, they created a binding implication, where non actually existed in the proposed language that the 2015 exemption would not apply to ongoing uses.
The EPA themselves defined "new use" with regards to PFAS as any manufacturing or process not ongoing as of and after 2015, as cited in the ruling:
>In response to growing concerns about PFAS, the EPA proposed a new SNUR in January 2015, “designating as a significant new use manufacturing . . . or processing of an identified subset of [PFAS] for any use that will not be ongoing after December 31, 2015, and all other [PFAS] for which there are currently no ongoing uses.”
>The proposed rule also made clear that the SNUR would apply only to “any use not ongoing as of the date on which this proposed rule is published.” Id.
So not only are the EPA aware of what Section 5's "new use" language means and tried to twist it during enforcement, they ignored their own very specific definition to try and regulate Inhance.
That is what the courts are telling to EPA to stop doing. The courts are ordering the EPA to cite the appropriate law and write appropriate regulations following due process first, otherwise known as Section 6, in order to regulate Inhance and their fluorination process which the court reaffirms is something the EPA can do.
>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.
> Most of the people here are white knighting for the EPA, throwing down the courts, villifying corporations, and it's fairly clear they haven't actually read the ruling either.
Why do you think you can brazenly lie to people like this? It's not going to work and it's not acceptable.
You responded to a specific post about a specific thing with a made-up thing, that wasn't what was being discussed. That's why you are unreasonable. Here now, again, you are doing it by twisting your post to now be about everything else, except the actual post you responded to, which had a pretty specific and reasonable criticism of the 5th circuit. This most recent post by you screams of projection, where you instead just insist the 5th circuit is "reasonable" just because you don't like why people disagree with them. Apparently the irony of this is beyond you.
>you instead just insist the 5th circuit is "reasonable" just because you don't like why people disagree with them.
No, I find the court's ruling here reasonable because I read through the ruling and the included timeline of events and found their conclusion makes sense. That is quite different from handwaving away their authority because you just don't like their rulings.
You could also read the ruling like I did and try arguing what about it is "wild" and "twisted" as the comment I replied to put it, an unreasonable sentiment also shared by most of the people in this thread.
For starters, do most of the people here realize the court affirms the EPA's right to regulate PFOA and does not find fault with the core reasoning itself? If this court is "wild" and "twisted", is it "wild" and "twisted" for the EPA to regulate PFOA properly under Section 6?
> No, I find the court's ruling here reasonable because I read through the ruling and the included timeline of events and found their conclusion makes sense. That is quite different from handwaving away their authority because you just don't like their rulings.
But the post was about the 5th Circuit in general, which has come out with a number of incredibly unreasonable rulings. That was the criticism, that the 5th Circuit shouldn't inherently be trusted as reasonable just because.
>You could also read the ruling like I did and try arguing what about it is "wild" and "twisted" as the comment I replied to put it, an unreasonable sentiment also shared by most of the people in this thread.
I feel like you haven't been engaging with what I actually wrote with if you keep arguing this.
>that the 5th Circuit shouldn't inherently be trusted as reasonable just because.
Yes, and that goes both ways.
I read the ruling and found its conclusion reasonable, thus the court insofar as this case is reasonable. If you or anyone else thinks the court is unreasonable with their ruling here, please read the ruling and make your case like I have. What part is "wild" and "twisted"?
>I feel like you haven't been engaging with what I actually wrote with if you keep arguing this.
What part of "I read the ruling and found it reasonable." do you not understand? What part of "I find shooting the messenger unreasonable." do you not understand? What part of "Denying the judiciary just because you don't like them is an attack on rule of law." do you not understand?
>I read the ruling and found its conclusion reasonable, thus the court insofar as this case is reasonable. If you or anyone else thinks the court is unreasonable with their ruling here, please read the ruling and make your case like I have. What part is "wild" and "twisted"?
As I have several times pointed out to you, the thread you responded to wasn't discussing the reasonability of this ruling, but the reasonability of the 5th Circuit in general, to which it has also been pointed out to you, has had a number of its more extreme decisions overruled by the current supreme court.
>What part of "I read the ruling and found it reasonable." do you not understand? What part of "I find shooting the messenger unreasonable." do you not understand? What part of "Denying the judiciary just because you don't like them is an attack on rule of law." do you not understand?
There's no part of that which I don't understand, and it's an odd response to insist I'm not understanding your posts, which I very clearly do and have repeatedly pointed out as pertaining to a different issue than what was being discussed, by asking if I understood that you think the court is reasonable. Yes, we get that you think the court is reasonable here. Try reading my posts again. Or, don't. Either way, no need to be angry.
You're still not understanding me, so let me rephrase:
What is the point of referring to other cases, which may or may not be unreasonable, and using them to throw out the court's authority? Without even reading their ruling, for that matter. Or worse, for no reason other than you don't like their ruling?
The answer is there is no point, at least not any that is productive. All you achieve is the spreading of doubt and uncertainty about the judiciary and thus the laws governing the land. It's an attack on the rule of law, and the only logical conclusion if this is kept up is anarchy. I find this ironic, actually; because these people presumably want to protect the rule of law, but they are achieving the exact opposite.
Read the ruling and make your case. Otherwise there can't be any useful conversations.
>What is the point of referring to other cases, which may or may not be unreasonable, and using them to throw out the court's authority? Without even reading their ruling, for that matter. Or worse, for no reason other than you don't like their ruling?
Because the discussion was about the quality of the Court's opinions in general. I'm not sure what is so difficult about that for you to grasp.
>The answer is there is no point, at least not any that is productive.
We are just people sharing opinions on HN, I'm not sure where you got the impression that your posts were productive, or any of the posts here are productive, nor by what means you seem to have used to come to such a conclusion.
>Read the ruling and make your case. Otherwise there can't be any useful conversations.
Once again, you are being unreasonable. It's completely valid to talk about the general quality of decisions made by a circuit court. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that such a thing cannot be discussed "productively" And it seems you are basing your opinion here on the fact that wait for it others disagree with you!
>The answer is there is no point, at least not any that is productive. All you achieve is the spreading of doubt and uncertainty about the judiciary and thus the laws governing the land.
The legitimacy of any court is based on, in part, how it is received by the public. That's the nature of government and law. I'm really not sure how you came to the conclusion that courts cannot be criticized, but it's flat-out asinine. The 5th Circuit has done its own work to spread doubt and uncertainty regarding the quality of its rulings, and that is absolutely not the fault of anyone pointing out the deficient quality of a number of its recent rulings. To suggest otherwise seems more than stifling.
>Because the discussion was about the quality of the Court's opinions in general. I'm not sure what is so difficult about that for you to grasp.
Because the discussion is about the ruling on this case by the court. Discrediting the court because of dogma is utterly pointless.
>Once again, you are being unreasonable. It's completely valid to talk about the general quality of decisions made by a circuit court. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that such a thing cannot be discussed "productively" And it seems you are basing your opinion here on the fact that wait for it others disagree with you!
It's one thing to read the ruling and poignantly point out flaws so they can be criticized in ways that are useful. Constructive criticism, as it's often called. Criticizing the judiciary in itself is fine and certainly encouraged. In fact, this is fundamental to the concept of appealing to higher courts.
What's not fine is criticizing the courts solely because you don't like how they ruled. You didn't even read their ruling. You're just trying to discredit an entire foundational institution because they didn't act in your favor. That is nonsense and an affront to rule of law and a functioning society.
>The legitimacy of any court is based on, in part, how it is received by the public. That's the nature of government and law. I'm really not sure how you came to the conclusion that courts cannot be criticized, but it's flat-out asinine.
See prior point.
>The 5th Circuit has done its own work to spread doubt and uncertainty regarding the quality of its rulings, and that is absolutely not the fault of anyone pointing out the deficient quality of a number of its recent rulings. To suggest otherwise seems more than stifling.
If we're going to discuss the ruling of a court, it is a requirement that we read the ruling and consider the points made. That is not happening here, and I am going to call that bullshit out.
>Because the discussion is about the ruling on this case by the court. Discrediting the court because of dogma is utterly pointless.
No, the post you replied to was about the 5th Circuit in general.
>What's not fine is criticizing the courts solely because you don't like how they ruled. You didn't even read their ruling. You're just trying to discredit an entire foundational institution because they didn't act in your favor. That is nonsense and an affront to rule of law and a functioning society.
Once again, not what anyone was doing. It is what you are doing about other people's criticism.
>If we're going to discuss the ruling of a court, it is a requirement that we read the ruling and consider the points made. That is not happening here, and I am going to call that bullshit out.
We were discussing the 5th Circuit's rulings in general. I'm not going to belabor this, you can make up whatever you want to justify your posts, that's your choice.
>No, the post you replied to was about the 5th Circuit in general.
Which was in reply to another post about the 5th circuit, which was in reply to my post about the ruling on this case, which was in reply to a post about the need for regulations to ban chemicals, which was in reply to the linked article about the 5th circuit's ruling on this case.
This whole thread is about the ruling on this case.
>Once again, not what anyone was doing. It is what you are doing about other people's criticism.
Literally what the post I replied to was doing, calling the court "wild" and "twisted".
Incidentally, nobody including you has mentioned what about this ruling is "wild" and "twisted" yet despite numerous requests to do so. Are you aware how discussions on a subject matter are conducted?
>We were discussing the 5th Circuit's rulings in general. I'm not going to belabor this, you can make up whatever you want to justify your posts, that's your choice.
See first point. If you want to talk about the 5th circuit in general, make your own thread. This thread is about the 5th circuit's ruling on the case between EPA and Inhance.
>This whole thread is about the ruling on this case.
So you are saying no one can discuss the 5th circuit in general in response to one of its rulings? One might even say "this ruling is reasonable, but that court sure hasn't been lately" and you'd still say the same. Get a grip!
>Incidentally, nobody including you has mentioned what about this ruling is "wild" and "twisted" yet despite numerous requests to do so. Are you aware how discussions on a subject matter are conducted?
I never said any of those things. You are really picking the wrong bone with me.
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.