NightlyPoe said:
Okay, that's a case and a broad explanation of the facts. But you've only moved from saying that the EPA should win by default because of their name, to saying that the policy you prefer should win by default because you believe it's good policy. Unfortunately, whether it is good or bad policy is irrelevant in determining whether that policy is in line with our system of laws. A proper judge puts aside their preferred outcome and makes their ruling based on the merits of the case itself and who has the better legal argument. Now tell me what his legal reasoning was for limiting the EPA's regulation and why it was incorrect. |
His legal justification more often than not is simply believing that the EPA is overstepping their boundaries which isn't really surprising. My problem with that is he regularly attempts to limit how the EPA can adapt to changing information. We're talking about science here, policies and information that were created in the 80s and 90s simply aren't as accurate or efficient as we once believed it to be. The case involving hydrofluorocarbons is a prime example of this because in the 90s they were seen as the solution to what could potentially be a massive environmental issue but thanks to our evolving understanding of the chemical we now know that it is a horrible pollutant in its own right. When you're dealing with a topic that relies on scientific research there needs to be a level of fluidity involved in the policy making process simply because the topic itself isn't static.
