this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
762 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
59665 readers
2684 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do you have any non-hyperbolic examples of this kind of overreach?
iirc they DID classify bees as fish but only because it was the only way they could enact any kind of protections for them.
And it wasn't a "bureaucratic agency" either.
Legislators made a law classifying invertebrates as fish. And judges interpreted the law as written. This is the clownery that happens when people with zero expertise control the law.
This is exactly what that fool was advocating for....
I think that case was rightly decided on both a policy and law basis. But after the law was enacted, the agency had interpreted the law to have an understanding on how they should enforce it prior to the judicial interpretation.
So the agency did interpret the law as including bees as fish, correctly. Had the not done so the court case wouldn't have happened because no one would have been advocating for that interpretation.
Alternate source
Looks more like a legislative skill issue than a judicial one to me. I don't know what is expected of the judges aside from interpreting the law.
It was a beuroctatic agency, theCalifornia Fish and Game Commission reinterpreted an existing law meant to protect fish instead of seeking a law that actually protected bees.
Since they won't answer, let me answer for them...
No. They have no examples or citations for any of their nonsense.
Lol, actually I will answer, and yes it will be with citations
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_bird_rule
https://nbcmontana.com/news/offbeat/california-court-rules-that-bees-are-actually-fish-california-endangered-species-act-cesa-crotch-western-suckley-cuckoo-franklin-species-endangered-invertebrates
I think their alluding to a California Bee interpretation another commenter mentioned and perhaps Sackett v EPA for the one after that. For the switching one I read that probably referring to multiple cases but the BATFE pistol brace interpretation has gone through multiple instances, several implicating hundreds of thousands into felons. For the making up rules I'd guess they were talking about the recent court decision where the agency decided they could hold fishers accountable for compliance officer's salaries despite the law not state that they could do that.
The hyperbole is the point. They're explaining that such a thing is theoretically possible.
It's not hyperbolic
https://nbcmontana.com/news/offbeat/california-court-rules-that-bees-are-actually-fish-california-endangered-species-act-cesa-crotch-western-suckley-cuckoo-franklin-species-endangered-invertebrates
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_bird_rule
Lol, those were not hyperbole, although I get where their absurdity might make you assume they were.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_bird_rule
https://nbcmontana.com/news/offbeat/california-court-rules-that-bees-are-actually-fish-california-endangered-species-act-cesa-crotch-western-suckley-cuckoo-franklin-species-endangered-invertebrates