This is what happens when you allow companies to dump unvetted, novel, synthetic chemicals into products and packaging. Especially when the audience for those products has substantially less information than the companies who produce them en masse.
I assure you, they will not do anything with the information even if they had it.
Convenience trumps every other consideration including safety.
Your resentment is not valid. The switch to plastics did not happen overnight. There used a lot more choices in the past. Common people increasingly chose plastics over a period of time. ( or rather were lazy) Your resentment can be rephrased as - "I cannot come to terms with the fact that common people really are that stupid".
Freedoms in various forms are generally not taken away overnight. As they say "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
Again, dude above is saying clearly that the issue is man man, we did this, it's not a natural disaster, so there is no one to blame but ourselves, pretending it was an outside power that did this to you is not valid.
I sure did, thanks. Did you read convolvatron's? Because "pretending it was an outside power that did this to you" is not what they said.
You can't expect every citizen to have 20 phds and actively keep searching for all potential harm from all sides, even you, whoever you are, are not keeping up with it all, thats a fact.
It can be tackled trivially, albeit it will create some business friction - you introduce a novel chemical in your product on our market? Please here is the substantial checklist of tests that you need to pass to be allowed. Otherwise please use approved stuff or bye, be it chinese sweatshop or apple. People like trump with their elephant-in-porcelaine-shop approach could be the force of good if they focused ie on such topics with their ferocity. But they do exact opposite (cash flow uber alles, fuck non-ultra-high-net-worth plebs its their fault for being poor and dumb subhumans).
So please a bit less of that high horse and more empathy and reason, absolute capitalism with disregard of individuals is what gave us marxism and communism as response, not the path we want or need to go down in 21st century for any reason.
Your saying people need a PhD to know to not eat plastics? Wow, you must think people are even dumber that dude above
Give me a single example. (You will find none.)
>It can be tackled trivially
Agreed, but it won't happen. ( I 'll leave you to figure out why it doesn't happen)
>FDA for US for example.
They are largely ineffective, if you have looked at them closely. There might be a few exceptions though.
>So please a bit less of that high horse and more empathy and reason
Great words, and quite a bit of virtue signalling. Have you observed the common person in USA? Netflix channels, tiktok, or some reality show, matter to them more than their health.
Look, I understand your sentiment but it does not gel with the reality I observe. Collectively we face the consequences of what the vast majority wants, or in this case neglects. You can either come to terms with it, or you can project your annoyance at me for stating it.
Eating (with) plastic was known to be a bad idea by everyone from day one, we do it because we don't care until something goes wrong for us personally.
Not always possible, is it? I mean there must have been a time before plastics?
Under the Chevron Doctrine, Congress could pass a law that broadly bans all chemicals like these and then the agencies could react to new studies like this and push out new rules as we learn more and as companies attempt workarounds.
But with that tool gone, there's basically no chance of this ever getting fixed. Congress will probably have to pass laws that ban each specific individual compound. Good luck with that!
Claiming that banning evictions falls under there is a rather 'creative' interpretation, but it was initially allowed due to Chevon deference where judges were obligated to defer to the interpretations of regulatory agencies.
If an agency is tasked with the 'prohibition of plastics, or related compounds, deemed reasonably likely to be harmful' then they would be fully capable of doing just that. With Chevron Deference they probably could then expand that mandate to then do something like claim regulatory authority over beaches owing to prohibited plastic waste washing ashore, but without it that would probably require a new law since that's clearly an unintended expansion of power.
Not true. And I mean literally definitionally not true. Chevron deference only applies (definitionally) when the agency's interpretation is reasonable.
With Chevron deference, if a regulated entity challenged a rule, the court applied a two part test:
Part 1. Is the matter resolved unambiguously by legislation? If yes: legislation wins. If no: proceed to Part 2.
Part 2. Is the agency's interpretation of the legislation reasonable? If yes: the agency's rule wins. If no: the rule is bad.
Without Chevron deference, if a regulated entity challenges a rule, it works this way:
Part 1. Is the matter resolved unambiguously by legislation? If yes: legislation wins. If no: proceed to Part 2.
Part 2. What's the court's opinion on the matter? That's the rule for this particular instance of the problem, with effectively zero binding authority on other instances of similar problems (e.g. a case on Compound x1 will have no bearing, a priori, on a virtually identical Compound x1.1)
Without Chevron, regulators have to stay within the bounds of the mandate clearly legally granted to them by Congress. With Chevron, they could step far beyond those bounds, so long as there was a "reasonable" argument for it.
Again the example with the CDC makes this very clear. A mandate enabling them to carry out actions "necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases" like testing, inspections, quarantines, and so forth does not clearly (or even reasonably) grant them the right to also prevent evictions. But they could create a "reasonable" argument that, though ambiguous, it should.
With Chevron this ambiguity was up to the regulator to decide themselves. Without Chevron, it's up to the judiciary to decide (if the regulator is sued). So circling back to the point here - the end of Chevron has absolutely 0 impact on the ability of a regulator under the clear mandate to 'ban unsafe plastics' from being able to 'ban unsafe plastics.'
Easiest way to explain is to correct your second paragraph:
> [With or] without Chevron, regulators have to stay within the bounds of the mandate clearly legally granted to them by Congress. With Chevron, they could step far beyond [my interpretation of] those bounds, so long as [a court found the regulator's interpretation was reasonable].
Without Chevron, even if the agency's interpretation is reasonable, the court can just come up with their own interpretation in place of it. This effectively destroys regulators' ability to make rules across broader scopes of scenarios than the ones defined explicitly in legislation (Chemical X != Chemical X.1) or across broader jurisdictions than the ones tested in court (Chemical X can rather easily be disallowed in District 2, allowed in District 5 just based on different judges' interpretations of the specific cases before them, totally divorced from the scientific basis for the ban on the chemical itself).
You seem to be drawing a distinction between whether their interpretation is reasonable versus whether a "reasonable argument could be made" that their interpretation is reasonable. The latter does not exist. The courts only test the former.
You can read how the Chevron test was applied to remove the eviction moratorium because, in fact, it's not up to the regulator to decide themselves. Their interpretation is actually reviewable by the court and will be struck down if found to be unreasonable [1]
> the end of Chevron has absolutely 0 impact on the ability of a regulator under the clear mandate to 'ban unsafe plastics' from being able to 'ban unsafe plastics.'
Lol, if this were true then not one industrial group would care if Chevron stood for eternity. But in fact they're salivating over this decision.
Care to share your theory for why that is?
Before, with Chevron Deference, the judiciary's power to do anything was extremely limited. If the agency's interpretation of their mandate was "reasonable" then the judiciary was compelled to defer to the regulator. Now, without Chevron Deference, the judiciary can actually play their role as judge once again. It's not hard to see why Chevron Deference was deemed unconstitutional. It's up to the judiciary to judge the law, not politicians and certainly not bureaucrats!
Notably the CDC's eviction moratorium was only overturned by the Supreme Court! Lower courts were obligated to defer to the CDC even in such an arguably absurd interpretation of their mandate.
And you’re apparently not even interested in understanding your own position. The decision I just linked to is from a district court. I.e. no, they actually DO NOT have the obligation that you’re supposing they do.
Care to share your theory why industry groups are so thrilled with this if it has “0 impact” on regulators’ ability to regulate?
> Regulatory agencies do not operate on mandates like 'ban hydroxywhateverazine.'
Yes, in fact they will have to operate via statutes this strict if they don’t want everything to get litigated a million times. That’s sort of the whole point.
Your “ban dangerous plastics” is a hilarious example of this. What do you mean by “ban?” In what contexts? In what concentrations? In what formulations? In what exposure levels?
Okay now what do you mean by “dangerous?” In what contexts? In what concentrations? In what formulations? In what exposure levels?
Previously, regulators could (and did) employ scientists to produce these answers and govern accordingly with published rules that applied nationwide with all such rules subject to judicial review for the “reasonableness” in their statutory basis. Now, courts have to answer these case by case, district by district, scenario by scenario. Great work!
It’s clear from your first comment that you did not know what the Chevron test was and you’re trying to retcon your argument.
I think you should find different sources for your legal analysis.
However, that naivete ended not too long thereafter. And indeed Chevron was ended by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. The opinion for it is here. [2]
---
Under the Chevron doctrine, courts have sometimes been required to defer to “permissible” agency interpretations of the statutes those agencies administer—even when a reviewing court reads the statute differently
The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled.
Article III of the Constitution assigns to the Federal Judiciary the responsibility and power to adjudicate “Cases” and “Controversies”—concrete disputes with consequences for the parties involved. ... As Chief Justice Marshall declared in the foundational decision of Marbury v. Madison, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
---
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/aug/27/us-supreme-court...
[2] - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
There were two CDC moratoriums that made it to SCOTUS. The first was upheld by SCOTUS, the second was struck down. Neither was upheld nor struck down on Constitutional grounds.
You should also read the Loper Bright decision more closely. Chevron was struck down due to conflict with the Administrative Procedures Act, not the Constitution. The do not say anywhere that Congress cannot (Constitutionally) delegate such authority to the regulatory agencies. They say that Congress did not do such in a way that reconciles its conflict with the APA.
The quote I gave regarding the unconstitutionality of Chevon deference was from the Supreme Court opinion. It was both unconstitutional and contradicted previous legalese and precedent. It was a loser on every account.
Again: read more closely. Nowhere does Loper Bright say there was any conflict with the Constitution. Merely citing the Constitution in a decision does not mean the ruling is on Constitutional grounds. It says there was a violation of APA. That's the extent of the ruling.
You misunderstood what Chevron deference is, now you've misunderstood Loper Bright. Find new sources for your legal analysis!
You are acting childish.
As in… a concurrent, distinct opinion from the court’s decision?
This is proof of my point, not of yours lol.
That is Thomas saying: “the court DID NOT decide this ran afoul of the Constitution. I am writing separately to proclaim my own belief that it does.”
You are now misunderstanding how court opinions work.
Loper Bright: "Chevron deference also violates our Constitution’s separation of powers."
sorcerer-mar: "This is proof of my point."
---
NPC logic in its purest form.
> A concurring opinion is an opinion that agrees with the majority opinion but does not agree with the rationale behind it. Concurring opinions are not binding [emphasis mine]
If someone files a concurring opinion that they believe it violates the Constitution, that indicates the majority opinion did not find this. That's why they filed a concurring opinion and didn't join the majority opinion, goofball. You can also read the actual majority opinion to learn, in fact, they do not argue that it's unconstitutional, but even using your shortcut it leads to the opposite of your conclusion.
By your logic, the dissenting opinions are also part of the Loper Bright decision, so therefore, Loper Bright says the opposite of what everyone thinks it says:
> Put all that together and deference to the agency is the almost obvious choice, based on an implicit congressional delegation of interpretive authority.
Wait just a second... it turns out that neither concurring nor dissenting opinions are the actual court's decision and its binding opinion, despite being published all on the same document.
Curious ain't it? Thank you for your excellent demonstration of the level of thoughtfulness and general knowledge behind Chevron opposition. I think your alternative media sources have failed you.
This speak of stupidity/incompetence or most likely corruption, the average ignorant populace is generally to blame, their priorities are never a healthy environment ( unless it's for virtue signalling). There is no hope.