Your ability to explain how legal and political matters will affect the everyday American is unmatched—and appreciated. While it’s great to make Congress write better laws, I don’t see this ruling as a win for anyone but lobbyists and companies out for profit over the good of the people.
Considering how dysfunctional Congress is right now, this is a recipe for no regulations whatsoever.
The law: Don’t dump hazardous waste in the river.
Company: Dumps green glowing goo in river.
EPA: Hey, the law says you can’t do that.
Judge: Nah, the law said no hazardous waste. What does hazardous even mean? It didn’t say anything about green glowing goo. Congress will need to revise the law to specifically say green glowing goo.
Congress: spends 3 months arguing about Bunter Hiden’s laptop, Callery Hilton’s emails, and Tonald Dump’s hush money. Then goes on 2 week recess. Doesn’t come anywhere close to even talking about the green glowing goo.
To me, this is helping to set up the government to be in an even better position for Project 2025. The President now doesn’t have to worry about a bunch of those “pesky civil servants” who may not want to do things his way, and can instead rely on individuals he handpicks or who already have leanings towards him to tailor rulings that help move forward the policies the President supports. This is so alarming and I do not believe it is getting the attention it deserves.
Thank you, Sharon, for helping me understand both Project 2025 and the implications of Chevron better so I can really start to see the dominos stacking up.
Thankfully, no candidate supports Project 2025. Trump came out this week and said Project 2025 is "absolutely ridiculous". I think we need to stop giving so much weight and credit to it. I have yet to meet any conservative who supports it. I don't like the fear mongering over something so unrealistic, it shows paranoia akin to the far-right.
I took Trump’s denial as, “Oops, my bad! I better deny any knowledge of P2025 so I won’t lose voters.” Interesting that some of the creators of this worked in the Trump WH.
What a mess - two undesirable candidates and our country at a crossroads.
These are ALL the things that Trump wanted to do during his first term but did not have the game plan or the runway to accomplish. Now, he has a court on his side and a clear, step-by-step plan. He knows if he installs actual Civil Servants into cabinet positions like he did last time, they will stop him from his most terrible impulses. But if he installs loyalists no one will dare stop him. He has an outline for calling up the National Guard to squash protests, something that he asked about more than 3x during his first Presidency. Also, ask yourself, what did you think was not possible a few years ago that has come true? Some of the aspects of 2025 may be beyond the pale for some congressmen, so they will push back, but a lot of the talking points are plans that Trump Wants with a capital "W."
I agree with you Rachel but I also have had my mouth hit the floor when hearing what the Supreme Court has passed or undone more than once. I’m saddened at what is happening to us and it causes me concern.
Yes, I can see him seeing all the pushback on it and then distancing himself. So I agree. But that is what I'm saying, I don't see any candidate wanting anything to do with it. It's Qanon level thinking which I don't think will ever come to fruition.
Why then do all his top advisers support it? And in fact, had a huge part in creating it? I think it’s worrying that he actually claimed he “hadn’t read it” but then turned around and said some of the ideas were fine… which one is it? Trump says one thing but his actions say another. You can read Trumps actual agenda online and it’s not that far off from Project 2025 as stated specifically on his website.
Do you really believe ANYTHING that comes out of his mouth? His entire statement was a contradiction. “I know nothing about it….but I don’t like it” Hmmm.
Hm, but the evidence shows this statement of his isn’t true. He has supported it and supports those who wrote and are hoping to implement it publicly. I feel as tho this is a ‘looks like a duck, quacks like a duck’ situation. Personally, for my kids who will likely pay the biggest long term price, it’s not worth trusting his words now, as he’s lied many times before. Principle of Party for me this year.
When the people who are the architects of Republican backed legislation tell you who and what they are, believe them. For decades they told everyone they were remaking the courts in an effort to overturn Roe and people gave every defense in the world from candidates don’t perfectly align with them to Roe is established precedent, now here we are. For decades they have told people that the way to dismantle public education is through the vouchers system and pulling funds out of the public school system, now here we are. When the Heritage Foundation tells you who and what they are, the response must be to believe them. I have yet to see a republican candidate denounce the Heritage Foundation instead they covet their endorsements and line up in droves to have themselves or staffers work for them or previously have worked there. So again, when they tell you who they are, please believe them.
After reading Sharon’s explanation of it I don’t know if people need to necessarily support it, to me it sounded like if they can implement Project 2025 because they have control of Congress and Executive they will
Respectfully, I don't believe a single thing that Trump says. He made over 30,000 false and misleading claims while president. He regularly makes statements that are untrue. Viewing P2025 as some conspiracy theory or fear mongering would be a mistake. Downplaying what could essentially destroy our democracy is a risk I'm not willing to take. BTW, parts of P2025 are already being enacted.
Yes he denied knowing it, then stated specific things he disagreed with from it. His current campaign press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, is starring in recruitment ads for P2025. Four prior Trump administration loyalist have joined the Heritage Foundation, and Trump enacted many HF suggestions during his prior term. It may not be realistic that he can implement parts of it, but IMO it's realistic and certainly not paranoid to be concerned that he'll try.
I think it’s also important to notice that the objectives of Project 2025 are already being implemented as state laws around the country. They are already putting their money behind school board candidates, crafting bills that they send to legislators around the country about Trans-girls in sports or bathroom bills. It is very much already happening at the state level in the red state where I live, so I don’t question *at all* their intention to turn this into federal law.
No candidate ADMITS to supporting P2025. But many aspects of the plan align with Trump's plans, i.e. abolishing the Dept of Ed and EPA, and cutting funding to NIH, and DHS. Not to mention the elements of Christian Nationalism that we already see in play in Louisiana and Oklahoma. Don't kid yourself...the are people in power who support P2025.
Have you read/watched all the Agenda47 segments on Trump’s campaign website? They are in strong alignment with many portions of Project 2025. I don’t think that is a coincidence.
I saw this… I agree with the “fear response”… no good decisions are made in response to fear… however, I also don’t fully trust Trump and what he says. Wish I could trust him or most anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician. I am applying the Reina Trust and Betrayl model here… and I am trying to rebuild trust with our government… so don’t take that comment in a dooms day view. Trust is transacted.
Unfortunately some of the things in Project 2025 are already coming to fruition because of Republican leaders. They're already attacking women's bodily autonomy, they've already thrown IVF & contraception into the mix and we all know abortion is part of that. They've already begun attacking the LGBTQIA+ community with over 100 anti-gay laws across the country, they're already attacking DEI, they've already begun attempts to force Christianity into public schools, they're working on trying to end no fault divorce, they're already pushing the "nuclear family" ideal as what's "right" and what will "save America". The list goes on and on, and now with the overturning of Chevron, it opens up a whole new level regarding the environment and regulations. Trump saying he "doesn't know anything" about Project 2025 is as believable as him saying "everybody wanted Roe overturned"🙄 He and his team are realizing the implications it could have and are trying to back peddle, just like he did with his position on abortion. If people haven't realized he is willing to change his position on something purely based on what will get him the most votes/what will get whoever is in front of him to like him, then you've been hiding under a rock. His position on immigration dramatically changed the moment he got in front of Silicon Valley execs yet he proposes a different idea when he's at his rallies...
The administrator of the EPA is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The EPA is one of the agencies where the head serves “at the pleasure of the President” and can be removed without cause.
What I am unsure about is what happens if an administrator is removed and then a President and the Senate go into a standoff and cannot confirm a new one.
Could this “issue” (judges deciding instead of agencies/experts) be resolved by Congress amending or passing laws that specifically delegate the decision-making authority in cases of ambiguity? In other words, could the laws actually read, “In cases of uncertainty, we want X agency or their experts to do what they feel is best.”
My concern is that Congress is a bunch of lawyers and/or lay people who do not necessarily have the expertise needed to make such specific laws. The agencies in charge should be the experts in the field.
To be honest, such is the loss of my faith in Congress and the Supreme Court that I have a hard time seeing anything good in this ruling. I look at Citizens United and see how the implications have destroyed our elections. I look at how gerrymandering and the gutting of voting rights has diluted the power of our votes. Now, this conservative court gives us the overturning of Chevron and total immunity for presidents for “official acts” that are official if they deem them so, and it feels to me that this Supreme Court just made themselves unelected, but lifetime appointed, kings and queens.
Imagine getting a PhD in your science field, churning out peer reviewed research, but a judge who hasn’t opened a science book since undergrad is calling the shots. And just sooo embarrassing on a global platform (ie Gorsuch “nitrous oxide” slip).
First of all, I couldn't get the image out of my head of chimpanzees in overalls and hardhats reluctantly stuffing themselves into smokestacks. THAT is funny (unless it was true, then it would be tragic).
The example that the dissenting judges gave about amino acids -- perfect. Judges are experts in the law, and any good expert should quickly tell you when they're not an expert. We need experts making decisions, not laymen making guesses.
Hands down this decision scares me more than any other policy (and I’m going to call it a policy bc of its far-reaching effects) I can remember in my adult life (but I’m not that old 😜). While Conservatives may want “less regulation”- an admirable thing in some regards- stop and think about all the ways that the government- us, collectively- works for our *good* as a powerful force to improve lives and safety. It’s not an exaggeration to say this could potentially touch every area of our lives: the food we eat, education, prescription drugs, reproduction, how banks handle our money, transportation safety…the list goes on and on. This should really, really worry us- and remind us that elections up and down the ballot have consequences.
And the thing is, you don’t even have to be a traditional “bad actor” (cue villains in capes!) to take this to its logical conclusion! If a corporation, for instance, knows they can increase shareholder returns/profits by litigating an EPA or FDA or etc etc etc directive/decision for a fraction of the cost, many will choose to do so.
This will tie up the courts for YEARS, preventing a lot of important things from getting decided and chatting taxpayers billions. That feels like an intentional side effect. Gosh, what important decisions might need to be made in a time sensitive manner....
Thank you so much for explaining this! I have a son who is a lawyer in Manhattan and a daughter in law school in Berkeley. They were telling me what a huge deal this was but I just didn’t get it. I get worried when checks and balances are removed so we are left with one group holding much more power. I’m wondering if this would make going forth with project 2025 that much easier…
This just seems to defy all logic and common sense. Is our court system going to be completely bogged down in new lawsuits now? It feels increasingly like checks and balances in the US are being picked off one by one. I get that some people believe there is too much regulation on businesses. But we also can’t expect every single corporation and business owner to be altruistic. I really want to understand what just regular conservatives think about this? Like not someone who directly benefits but just your average person. Is your average conservative ok with dirtier air, dirtier water, toxic ingredients in household goods, food, and medicines etc? Would they actually rather it’s a random judge who decides this stuff rather than people with expertise in these matters?
Regarding this decision, which I consider to be a shortsighted setup for an administration that will dismantle federal agencies, and the warnings about Project 2025, which is a playbook for giving supreme powers to future (Republicans only) presidents, I don’t consider warnings of these efforts to be fear mongering at all. I keep thinking of the analogy of the frog in the pot of water, the temperature gradually being turned up, until the frog is cooking in boiling water because it didn’t notice the gradually increasing temperature change. These warnings are completely relevant and warranted. (Whew, long sentences, sorry!)
I don’t understand why the fishermen didn’t work to get the costs for the observers go to the ones requiring the observation. Makes no sense to try to rewrite rules for everyone just because of this one industry.
I read somewhere that NOAA had been paying the cost of the observers on the herring boats, but due to cuts to NOAA by the Trump administration, the fishermen started to have to pay half, and the case was filed. Then, the cuts were reversed by the Biden administration, so by the time it got to SCOTUS, the case was moot, but SCOTUS took it anyway, because reversing Chevron was part of the long-term agenda of the right-wing.
In my opinion, it is because that is not what the case is about. It was an excuse. Just like it was never about water fountains. If I’m correct, Sharon referenced that when she said, “they hit the ball off of the T.” It was a set up.
It is common for the cost of the regulating body to be passed onto the organizations they are monitoring. Just like all publicly traded companies have to pay an annual fee to the Securities Exchange Commission which regulates their published financial reports.
I appreciate you explaining Sharon, thank you. I now fear the implications for future generations. I know it impacts more than the EPA but what my morning brain keeps ruminating on is that when we went to Los Angeles (90 miles from our home) to see my grandparents in the 70s I would get sick from the smog. You could see the density of it as you drove into town. Then… it got better. Is it perfect, no, but it isn’t what it was. So now, will our communities be smog filled again? Will our creeks and lakes be toxic again. I know it’s a simplified concern, but it where I sit as I digest how this short sighted decision will effect our future generations. All to save a buck. 😢
I’m with you, Kelly. We aren’t dealing with companies that look out for everyone. We’re dealing with companies who just want to make a bigger and bigger profit regardless of there negative consequences for people or the earth. These companies already use the judicial system to tie things up in court and reduce their accountability. Now it’s going to be even worse. And in the end, when a decision is finally made, it will be by a judge with little to no knowledge of the subject rather than experts in the field. I’m sure there is overreach in our regulating system, but I would rather err on the side of restraint and keeping our air and lakes clean than allow things that cannot easily be reversed.
Thank you Sharon for explaining this so well. Is this a small step in the eventual erasure of federal agencies? I see checks and balances becoming grossly out of balance.
Your ability to explain how legal and political matters will affect the everyday American is unmatched—and appreciated. While it’s great to make Congress write better laws, I don’t see this ruling as a win for anyone but lobbyists and companies out for profit over the good of the people.
Thank you ❤️❤️❤️
Considering how dysfunctional Congress is right now, this is a recipe for no regulations whatsoever.
The law: Don’t dump hazardous waste in the river.
Company: Dumps green glowing goo in river.
EPA: Hey, the law says you can’t do that.
Judge: Nah, the law said no hazardous waste. What does hazardous even mean? It didn’t say anything about green glowing goo. Congress will need to revise the law to specifically say green glowing goo.
Congress: spends 3 months arguing about Bunter Hiden’s laptop, Callery Hilton’s emails, and Tonald Dump’s hush money. Then goes on 2 week recess. Doesn’t come anywhere close to even talking about the green glowing goo.
Yes! That’s what they do now. No policies are being made. It’s so exhausting.
Exactly this!👍🏼
You nailed it. This made my head spin!
To me, this is helping to set up the government to be in an even better position for Project 2025. The President now doesn’t have to worry about a bunch of those “pesky civil servants” who may not want to do things his way, and can instead rely on individuals he handpicks or who already have leanings towards him to tailor rulings that help move forward the policies the President supports. This is so alarming and I do not believe it is getting the attention it deserves.
Thank you, Sharon, for helping me understand both Project 2025 and the implications of Chevron better so I can really start to see the dominos stacking up.
Project 2025 is well underway, it could be completed in 2025 not started!
Read it thoroughly or watch/read Sharon’s explanation of the 900+pages. It started years ago
Thankfully, no candidate supports Project 2025. Trump came out this week and said Project 2025 is "absolutely ridiculous". I think we need to stop giving so much weight and credit to it. I have yet to meet any conservative who supports it. I don't like the fear mongering over something so unrealistic, it shows paranoia akin to the far-right.
I took Trump’s denial as, “Oops, my bad! I better deny any knowledge of P2025 so I won’t lose voters.” Interesting that some of the creators of this worked in the Trump WH.
What a mess - two undesirable candidates and our country at a crossroads.
These are ALL the things that Trump wanted to do during his first term but did not have the game plan or the runway to accomplish. Now, he has a court on his side and a clear, step-by-step plan. He knows if he installs actual Civil Servants into cabinet positions like he did last time, they will stop him from his most terrible impulses. But if he installs loyalists no one will dare stop him. He has an outline for calling up the National Guard to squash protests, something that he asked about more than 3x during his first Presidency. Also, ask yourself, what did you think was not possible a few years ago that has come true? Some of the aspects of 2025 may be beyond the pale for some congressmen, so they will push back, but a lot of the talking points are plans that Trump Wants with a capital "W."
I agree with you Rachel but I also have had my mouth hit the floor when hearing what the Supreme Court has passed or undone more than once. I’m saddened at what is happening to us and it causes me concern.
When you say lose voters, you mean that he knows a majority of conservatives don't support it?
Yes.
Yes, I can see him seeing all the pushback on it and then distancing himself. So I agree. But that is what I'm saying, I don't see any candidate wanting anything to do with it. It's Qanon level thinking which I don't think will ever come to fruition.
I believe Trump said that he 1. didn't know anything about it AND 2. disagreed with some of it. Those can't both be true. I call BS on him.
You are right. Why would any candidate align themselves with it? 🇺🇸
Why then do all his top advisers support it? And in fact, had a huge part in creating it? I think it’s worrying that he actually claimed he “hadn’t read it” but then turned around and said some of the ideas were fine… which one is it? Trump says one thing but his actions say another. You can read Trumps actual agenda online and it’s not that far off from Project 2025 as stated specifically on his website.
Do you really believe ANYTHING that comes out of his mouth? His entire statement was a contradiction. “I know nothing about it….but I don’t like it” Hmmm.
Hm, but the evidence shows this statement of his isn’t true. He has supported it and supports those who wrote and are hoping to implement it publicly. I feel as tho this is a ‘looks like a duck, quacks like a duck’ situation. Personally, for my kids who will likely pay the biggest long term price, it’s not worth trusting his words now, as he’s lied many times before. Principle of Party for me this year.
When the people who are the architects of Republican backed legislation tell you who and what they are, believe them. For decades they told everyone they were remaking the courts in an effort to overturn Roe and people gave every defense in the world from candidates don’t perfectly align with them to Roe is established precedent, now here we are. For decades they have told people that the way to dismantle public education is through the vouchers system and pulling funds out of the public school system, now here we are. When the Heritage Foundation tells you who and what they are, the response must be to believe them. I have yet to see a republican candidate denounce the Heritage Foundation instead they covet their endorsements and line up in droves to have themselves or staffers work for them or previously have worked there. So again, when they tell you who they are, please believe them.
You are 100000% correct on all points!
THIS!
After reading Sharon’s explanation of it I don’t know if people need to necessarily support it, to me it sounded like if they can implement Project 2025 because they have control of Congress and Executive they will
Respectfully, I don't believe a single thing that Trump says. He made over 30,000 false and misleading claims while president. He regularly makes statements that are untrue. Viewing P2025 as some conspiracy theory or fear mongering would be a mistake. Downplaying what could essentially destroy our democracy is a risk I'm not willing to take. BTW, parts of P2025 are already being enacted.
Remember Trump lied every 90 seconds in the debate…He has lied again. He IS aligned with P2025, he knows all about it. He is a liar
Trump's denial is just one more lie. Several of his top aides are leaders in the Project 2025 movement. A vote for Trump is a vote for Project 2025.
Yes he denied knowing it, then stated specific things he disagreed with from it. His current campaign press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, is starring in recruitment ads for P2025. Four prior Trump administration loyalist have joined the Heritage Foundation, and Trump enacted many HF suggestions during his prior term. It may not be realistic that he can implement parts of it, but IMO it's realistic and certainly not paranoid to be concerned that he'll try.
I think it’s also important to notice that the objectives of Project 2025 are already being implemented as state laws around the country. They are already putting their money behind school board candidates, crafting bills that they send to legislators around the country about Trans-girls in sports or bathroom bills. It is very much already happening at the state level in the red state where I live, so I don’t question *at all* their intention to turn this into federal law.
No candidate ADMITS to supporting P2025. But many aspects of the plan align with Trump's plans, i.e. abolishing the Dept of Ed and EPA, and cutting funding to NIH, and DHS. Not to mention the elements of Christian Nationalism that we already see in play in Louisiana and Oklahoma. Don't kid yourself...the are people in power who support P2025.
Have you read/watched all the Agenda47 segments on Trump’s campaign website? They are in strong alignment with many portions of Project 2025. I don’t think that is a coincidence.
I saw this… I agree with the “fear response”… no good decisions are made in response to fear… however, I also don’t fully trust Trump and what he says. Wish I could trust him or most anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician. I am applying the Reina Trust and Betrayl model here… and I am trying to rebuild trust with our government… so don’t take that comment in a dooms day view. Trust is transacted.
Unfortunately some of the things in Project 2025 are already coming to fruition because of Republican leaders. They're already attacking women's bodily autonomy, they've already thrown IVF & contraception into the mix and we all know abortion is part of that. They've already begun attacking the LGBTQIA+ community with over 100 anti-gay laws across the country, they're already attacking DEI, they've already begun attempts to force Christianity into public schools, they're working on trying to end no fault divorce, they're already pushing the "nuclear family" ideal as what's "right" and what will "save America". The list goes on and on, and now with the overturning of Chevron, it opens up a whole new level regarding the environment and regulations. Trump saying he "doesn't know anything" about Project 2025 is as believable as him saying "everybody wanted Roe overturned"🙄 He and his team are realizing the implications it could have and are trying to back peddle, just like he did with his position on abortion. If people haven't realized he is willing to change his position on something purely based on what will get him the most votes/what will get whoever is in front of him to like him, then you've been hiding under a rock. His position on immigration dramatically changed the moment he got in front of Silicon Valley execs yet he proposes a different idea when he's at his rallies...
They're lying.
Yep had P2025 written all over it! 😡
I agree with this.
Is the EPA head a Presidential appointee? If so, the department could swing left or right depending on the election.
The administrator of the EPA is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The EPA is one of the agencies where the head serves “at the pleasure of the President” and can be removed without cause.
What I am unsure about is what happens if an administrator is removed and then a President and the Senate go into a standoff and cannot confirm a new one.
Sharon, I appreciate you helping us to understand this decision and project 2025 better. I agree with everything Ali said.
Could this “issue” (judges deciding instead of agencies/experts) be resolved by Congress amending or passing laws that specifically delegate the decision-making authority in cases of ambiguity? In other words, could the laws actually read, “In cases of uncertainty, we want X agency or their experts to do what they feel is best.”
My concern is that Congress is a bunch of lawyers and/or lay people who do not necessarily have the expertise needed to make such specific laws. The agencies in charge should be the experts in the field.
Great question!
I had the same thought.
To be honest, such is the loss of my faith in Congress and the Supreme Court that I have a hard time seeing anything good in this ruling. I look at Citizens United and see how the implications have destroyed our elections. I look at how gerrymandering and the gutting of voting rights has diluted the power of our votes. Now, this conservative court gives us the overturning of Chevron and total immunity for presidents for “official acts” that are official if they deem them so, and it feels to me that this Supreme Court just made themselves unelected, but lifetime appointed, kings and queens.
Imagine getting a PhD in your science field, churning out peer reviewed research, but a judge who hasn’t opened a science book since undergrad is calling the shots. And just sooo embarrassing on a global platform (ie Gorsuch “nitrous oxide” slip).
First of all, I couldn't get the image out of my head of chimpanzees in overalls and hardhats reluctantly stuffing themselves into smokestacks. THAT is funny (unless it was true, then it would be tragic).
The example that the dissenting judges gave about amino acids -- perfect. Judges are experts in the law, and any good expert should quickly tell you when they're not an expert. We need experts making decisions, not laymen making guesses.
Hands down this decision scares me more than any other policy (and I’m going to call it a policy bc of its far-reaching effects) I can remember in my adult life (but I’m not that old 😜). While Conservatives may want “less regulation”- an admirable thing in some regards- stop and think about all the ways that the government- us, collectively- works for our *good* as a powerful force to improve lives and safety. It’s not an exaggeration to say this could potentially touch every area of our lives: the food we eat, education, prescription drugs, reproduction, how banks handle our money, transportation safety…the list goes on and on. This should really, really worry us- and remind us that elections up and down the ballot have consequences.
💯- I think there is a lot of naivety here that “oh they can’t mean that” lack of critical
Thinking of exactly how far a bad actor can take it. We have just laid out the red carpet of the worst case scenario being easily possible.
And the thing is, you don’t even have to be a traditional “bad actor” (cue villains in capes!) to take this to its logical conclusion! If a corporation, for instance, knows they can increase shareholder returns/profits by litigating an EPA or FDA or etc etc etc directive/decision for a fraction of the cost, many will choose to do so.
This will tie up the courts for YEARS, preventing a lot of important things from getting decided and chatting taxpayers billions. That feels like an intentional side effect. Gosh, what important decisions might need to be made in a time sensitive manner....
Thank you so much for explaining this! I have a son who is a lawyer in Manhattan and a daughter in law school in Berkeley. They were telling me what a huge deal this was but I just didn’t get it. I get worried when checks and balances are removed so we are left with one group holding much more power. I’m wondering if this would make going forth with project 2025 that much easier…
This just seems to defy all logic and common sense. Is our court system going to be completely bogged down in new lawsuits now? It feels increasingly like checks and balances in the US are being picked off one by one. I get that some people believe there is too much regulation on businesses. But we also can’t expect every single corporation and business owner to be altruistic. I really want to understand what just regular conservatives think about this? Like not someone who directly benefits but just your average person. Is your average conservative ok with dirtier air, dirtier water, toxic ingredients in household goods, food, and medicines etc? Would they actually rather it’s a random judge who decides this stuff rather than people with expertise in these matters?
Regarding this decision, which I consider to be a shortsighted setup for an administration that will dismantle federal agencies, and the warnings about Project 2025, which is a playbook for giving supreme powers to future (Republicans only) presidents, I don’t consider warnings of these efforts to be fear mongering at all. I keep thinking of the analogy of the frog in the pot of water, the temperature gradually being turned up, until the frog is cooking in boiling water because it didn’t notice the gradually increasing temperature change. These warnings are completely relevant and warranted. (Whew, long sentences, sorry!)
I don’t understand why the fishermen didn’t work to get the costs for the observers go to the ones requiring the observation. Makes no sense to try to rewrite rules for everyone just because of this one industry.
I read somewhere that NOAA had been paying the cost of the observers on the herring boats, but due to cuts to NOAA by the Trump administration, the fishermen started to have to pay half, and the case was filed. Then, the cuts were reversed by the Biden administration, so by the time it got to SCOTUS, the case was moot, but SCOTUS took it anyway, because reversing Chevron was part of the long-term agenda of the right-wing.
In my opinion, it is because that is not what the case is about. It was an excuse. Just like it was never about water fountains. If I’m correct, Sharon referenced that when she said, “they hit the ball off of the T.” It was a set up.
It is common for the cost of the regulating body to be passed onto the organizations they are monitoring. Just like all publicly traded companies have to pay an annual fee to the Securities Exchange Commission which regulates their published financial reports.
“Best interpretation of the law” feels very open to opinion….
I appreciate you explaining Sharon, thank you. I now fear the implications for future generations. I know it impacts more than the EPA but what my morning brain keeps ruminating on is that when we went to Los Angeles (90 miles from our home) to see my grandparents in the 70s I would get sick from the smog. You could see the density of it as you drove into town. Then… it got better. Is it perfect, no, but it isn’t what it was. So now, will our communities be smog filled again? Will our creeks and lakes be toxic again. I know it’s a simplified concern, but it where I sit as I digest how this short sighted decision will effect our future generations. All to save a buck. 😢
I’m with you, Kelly. We aren’t dealing with companies that look out for everyone. We’re dealing with companies who just want to make a bigger and bigger profit regardless of there negative consequences for people or the earth. These companies already use the judicial system to tie things up in court and reduce their accountability. Now it’s going to be even worse. And in the end, when a decision is finally made, it will be by a judge with little to no knowledge of the subject rather than experts in the field. I’m sure there is overreach in our regulating system, but I would rather err on the side of restraint and keeping our air and lakes clean than allow things that cannot easily be reversed.
Thank you Sharon for explaining this so well. Is this a small step in the eventual erasure of federal agencies? I see checks and balances becoming grossly out of balance.