this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
67 points (98.6% liked)
Collapse
309 readers
44 users here now
This is the place for discussing the potential collapse of modern civilization and the environment.
Collapse, in this context, refers to the significant loss of an established level or complexity towards a much simpler state. It can occur differently within many areas, orderly or chaotically, and be willing or unwilling. It does not necessarily imply human extinction or a singular, global event. Although, the longer the duration, the more it resembles a ‘decline’ instead of collapse.
RULES
1 - Remember the human
2 - Link posts should come from a reputable source
3 - All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith.
4 - No low effort, high volume and low relevance posts.
Related lemmys:
- /c/green
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/[email protected]
- /c/[email protected]
- c/[email protected]
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
- Old posts https://lemmy.ml/c/collapse
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Easily done, genuinely. Nearly the same name.
Courts should not be the regulatory authority of pollutants. Experts in the field working within the bounds of a framework set forth by legislation should be. Bring back Chevron Deference.
This was a terrible decision.
Pre or post Loper Bright courts were not the regulatory authority, that's the Executive. The Judiciary determines the bounds of the framework set forth by the Legislative branch, through judicial review. Because the judiciary is our experts on the construction of statutes.
It's pretty ironic to do it in a decision where SCOTUS decided that the courts know better than the experts and don't have to listen to them.
Absolutely.
Think you're mixing up this case with Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo.
This case was just about a stay being granted pending a petition for review in a lower court. They lost because they were required to issue an explanation of their reasoning for an interpretation and hadn't.