> The judges did not deny the containers’ health risks, but said the EPA could not regulate the buckets under the statute it used.

I’m curious your thought process on how you made that conclusion.

I’m starting to feel like I should just accept that the legal community matches how I view the world, and it’s a more relevant and powerful way to view the world.

It's sophmoric to go "well, akshually, the law says..." when we're talking about corrupt bureaucrats with a history of enabling, covering up, and abetting in rampant environmental disasters (eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory). Cool, you're at stage 2 of viewing the world, which is really just trying to use faux rationality to cognitively disassociate from the nonsense evil going on in the world.

Stage 3 is letting decades of this nonsense erode this "academic" view and saying enough is enough.

I don't care what bureaucratic legalese these assholes are guarding their motives with, it's all 100% down to money. Money is flowing here between corporations and government, and that's the ultimate incentive behind these decisions.

the EPA bringing reaching the same conclusion the way the court pointed out is completely fine by me

what I can't get behind is your version where the authority you like can do anything you like in any way. you're assuming this is an example of "corrupt bureaucrats with a history of enabling, covering up, and abetting in rampant environmental disasters" and this is copypasta for any topic where something was curbed.