Collapse

160 readers

65 users here now

We moved here from lemmy.ml/c/collapse

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 posts.

Related lemmys:

founded 1 month ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Supreme Court Corrects EPA Opinion After Gorsuch Confuses Laughing Gas With Air Pollutant (www.forbes.com)

submitted 6 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] feedum_sneedson 6 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Easily done, genuinely. Nearly the same name.

[–] NegativeInf 21 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FireTower 2 points 6 days ago

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.

[–] Cornelius_Wangenheim 5 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] feedum_sneedson 2 points 6 days ago

Absolutely.

[–] FireTower 1 points 6 days ago

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.