Discussion about this post

User's avatar
April's avatar

I often end up in this place with people with whom I agree on a great many things, and I love your blog! That being said: I have a degree in epidemiology and I was a Case Investigator for my state during the worst of the Covid pandemic. I spoke to literally thousands of people who had just been diagnosed, found out how they were exposed (almost always going to a public gathering or seeing family who had flown on airplanes to get there) and I spoke to way too many family members of people who had just died. Covid is and was real. The public health response was not perfect, but there was much we did not know. Countries that had stronger, more restrictive responses suffered less. Americans are stubborn in our individualism and I kinda like that about us. But people can also be really stupid about from whom they take medical advice. I am fortunate that I have the education and experience to evaluate medical studies for myself. I can find the flaws in them and make my own decisions. I feel sorry for people who take their advice from social media quacks. And I feel even worse for those with chronic disease or compromised immune systems to are exposed or have to confine themselves more because others don't take advantage of vaccines.

Expand full comment
Jack Lebowitz's avatar

Understand where you are coming from, and the governmental directives during the uncertainty and panic surely upset many people and made them lose faith in governmental experts (abetted by a lot of bad faith propaganda sowing distrust).

But there’s a lot more to the Chevron doctrine than the CDC and COVID. It’s at the heart of regulating industrial activity vs. public health, safety and the environment. It’s the “reform” that got made in the Gilded Age thru the New Deal agencies and the EPA (originated during the Nixon administration.

IIRC the Chevron case dealt with whether the EPA could re-define “sources” of air pollution to exempt classes of regulated companies and relax regulation. The court correctly decided to let scientists and technocrats guided by politics and law make that call, not courts. That was widely regarded at the time as the correct decision, as we understand the risks of judicial activism and corruption.

So, where are we going with this? Well courts will make decisions about congressional dictates rather than administrative agencies. And if you think that’s a good idea and will end well with Trump 47 and Project 2025, look no further than the mifepristone muddle where a bunch of judge-shopping fascists find a contrarian Trump appointed judge in south Texas and he entertains a case from a party lacking standing (obgyns concerned about non-babies), another shocking and improper (to lawyers) thing and suddenly some doofus appointed for life judge in Texas knows more than the FDA.

Guarantee as much as you sometimes don’t like the decisions of technocrats and scientists trying to figure out what’s in the public interest, you’re going to like it a heck of a lot less if Trump and the plutocratic class make those decisions to benefit themselves and their friends.

A bright spot in this (always a bright spot) from my perspective as (retired) lawyer and history buff: what brought the sclerotic Soviet Union down after decades of drift and unhappiness with the state of life under that dictatorship were the grass roots citizens environmental movements after the government mishandling and lies around the Chernobyl disaster. These organic movements ushered in demands for political change.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts