News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Yeah dude I'm sure these old motherfuckers who dedicated their lives to ONE SINGLE ACADEMIC PURSUIT that is completely unrelated to science in just about every way, knows better than the EPA as to whether or not this plan is cutting air pollution.
Once again, we've encountered one of the many fatal flaws of our system: requiring every citizen and lawmaker to be an PhD level expert on literally every subject or else things break and people die. We're all the ones who have to abide by their dumbass decisions when it literally kills our children. Very cool.
I honestly have no idea what point you were trying to make here.
People without understanding of science are overriding people who understand it and have data to prove it. Ideology is trumping logic and it’s going to kill us.
Read the original post:
The court—that is 9 old people who have studied nothing but jurisprudence for the last 3 or 4+ decades —have decided that they are better qualified than the Environmental Protection Agency and the hundreds of thousands of scientists, engineers, and experts that make it up, to judge whether or not an EPA plan to curb pollution actually curbs pollution.
This (and the other decision that just came down about the SEC) seems to indicate to me exactly how they plan to rule in the Chevron Deference case, and it does not look good.
My only (admittedly convoluted) hope is that they decided to choose a couple of the regulatory issues on this session's docket as a handout to the Captain Planet villains that make up the GOP, so they don't lose their shit when they uphold Chevron.
I'm not holding my breath.
It does seem absurd that this stuff is tried in front of supreme court justices.
Could we do something like you say that involves experts in the field weighing in on the pros and cons, and costs?
Is it that the supreme court justices shouldn't hear these cases at all, or that they are just so corrupt they can't rule fairly?