SCOTUS on the watch for us

[Racer X]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=Smote]
from a purely legal stanbdpoint, in a lawsuit where the EPA for example, is involved in a lawsuit, since they provide the deffinitions and interpretations to the judge and juries, isn't the deck heavily stacked against the other party? Isn't that a violation of due process?

Our laws are riddled with vagueness and ambiguity. If the agency that administers the laws are not given deference in forming policy, then who should do the interpretation of vague and ambiguous language in the law? Juries? Judges? Neither of them have the expertise of the people in the agencies who have specific education and expertise in the matters being interpreted. Say there is some law about a category of drugs that seems to have vague or ambiguous language to laymen and judges who aren't experts in the field because they don't understand the science behind the language? Should we give juries or judges more deference than expert scientists?

I'm not saying that giving full deference to the administrating agencies always leads to the best outcomes. Nothing is perfect. But I think there is greater risk in general in giving juries and judges more deference in interpreting vague and ambiguous language in laws that are administered by agencies than giving greater deference to the administrating agencies.
Once again, my knowledge is very specific on only certain subjects, but in the absolute simplest terms, when the BATFE says we determined that you have a machine gun, we are the experts, they will win every time. If the EPA says you have a wetland, and we saw migratory birds there once, we defined the laws, they win every time.

That isn't due process, even if they lose sometimes. "Making room for these innovations, the Court has determined that due process requires, at a minimum: (1) notice; (2) an opportunity to be heard; and (3) an impartial tribunal." https://constitutioncenter.org/the-const...lauses/701 How can it possibly be impartial if one party sets the definitions?

[pdq]

Conversely, how is it unfair if a regulatory agency, duly authorized by Congress to set rules to accomplish Congress’s legislative goals, does so?

Especially when those affected by such rules can always appeal to the courts if they think they’ve been wronged?

[DeusxMac]

Smote wrote:
If the EPA says you have a wetland, and we saw migratory birds there once, we defined the laws, they win every time.

You characterize the cases as little-guy-vs-big-bully-EPA.

I recommend you look at the list of EPA civil cases and settlements here:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/enforcement/cases/

While clearly not a comprehensive list, it is worthwhile to note the names of the "Respondents" is rife with HUGE companies; like the oil industry - BP, Koch, ExonMobile, COCOCO etc.
Whom is the "big bully"?

[Tiangou]

Smote wrote:
from a purely legal stanbdpoint, in a lawsuit where the EPA for example, is involved in a lawsuit, since they provide the deffinitions and interpretations to the judge and juries, isn't the deck heavily stacked against the other party? Isn't that a violation of due process?

The process of creating regulations with notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), etc. is also known as "procedural due process."

[Racer X]

Tiangou wrote:
[quote=Smote]
from a purely legal standpoint, in a lawsuit where the EPA for example, is involved in a lawsuit, since they provide the definitions and interpretations to the judge and juries, isn't the deck heavily stacked against the other party? Isn't that a violation of due process?

The process of creating regulations with notice of proposed rule making (NPRM), etc. is also known as "procedural due process."
yes, and when the BATFE was flooded with comments on the proposed brace rule, despite the fact they received very few percentage wise for it, they did it anyway. It was not the will of the people based on the comments they received. And they changed their mind 4 times in just over a decade. Legal, not legal, legal, not legal. They made the definition based on what they were told to do. Not based on the law. In recent years, 2 different presidents have told them to change the legal definitions, and make items go away.

Chevron deference allowed a circumvention of the system. The courts are correcting them. They shouldn't have to in the first place.

[Tiangou]

Smote wrote:
[quote=Tiangou]
[quote=Smote]
from a purely legal standpoint, in a lawsuit where the EPA for example, is involved in a lawsuit, since they provide the definitions and interpretations to the judge and juries, isn't the deck heavily stacked against the other party? Isn't that a violation of due process?

The process of creating regulations with notice of proposed rule making (NPRM), etc. is also known as "procedural due process."
yes, and when the BATFE was flooded with comments on the proposed brace rule, despite the fact they received very few percentage wise for it, they did it anyway. It was not the will of the people based on the comments they received. And they changed their mind 4 times in just over a decade. Legal, not legal, legal, not legal. They made the definition based on what they were told to do. Not based on the law. In recent years, 2 different presidents have told them to change the legal definitions, and make items go away.

Chevron deference allowed a circumvention of the system. The courts are correcting them. They shouldn't have to in the first place.
You demanded due process.

Turns out they followed due process.

Now you're saying that due process isn't due process if you don't like the outcome and you're making up a bogus conspiracy to justify your hurt feelings.

At least when dems cry foul, they have evidence.

[Acer]

Here 1303 reasons why the EPA exists, and why neutral, knowledgable regulators are preferable to a "self-policed" industry:

Superfund sites in the United States: https://ballotpedia.org/Superfund_sites_...ted_States

Not on this list are hundreds of other small sites being monitored by the state environmental agencies