Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Bye-bye Chevron "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Regulations are liability protection by specifying the minimum requirements to comply with a law. Most regulatory agencies are friendly to the industry they regulate because interest groups and friendly Members of the House and Senate make it so. Whatever companies save by negating regulations, they will spend much more on attorneys and end up with uncertain and changing requirements dictated by various court cases. There won’t be no rules. There will be a jumble of case-by-case rules. [/quote] So much this. Plus, won't all those agency folks that write regulations just switch over to being expert witnesses to explain things in court to judges? Regulations are guidance about laws -- and without regulations, judges will still want guidance for statutory interpretation. The idea that getting rid of Chevron will be a means to dismantle agencies seems like a bizzaro fantasy. And instead of having one nationwide regulation subject to notice and comment from the public, there will be various court decisions that could be all over the place without any opportunity for public review and comment before those decisions are released and inforced. Great jobs program for attorneys and judges! [/quote] Oh right, as if judges have the mental capacity to understand something like the alpha and power of a clinical trial, false discovery rate for disease test, or the intricacies of genetic toxicology when hearing a court case over whether some pharma company’s drug or tech should be approved. Newsflash: corporations will always find an ‘expert witness’ to support their side no matter how much of a trash argument or data they have. You want to rely on a judge who has never had science or engineering training to make a decision on science and engineering ideas that could profoundly harm the entire planet? It’d be like taking a random Joe Schmo off the street who has had an office job their whole life and then getting a master electrician to explain to them in minute detail how to do electrical work for a commercial building. You then gotta trust that the Schmo off the street could interpret everything the master electrician told them and then rely on the Schmo to wire the building. Completely insane.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics