I haven’t looked into this particular rule, but it probably has the authority to issue a new rule or guidance that would change the Trump rule. I’d guess one possible problem is that the agency rule-making process is kinda slow and requires some specific steps (soliciting and reviewing comments from the public, producing an economic cost/benefit analysis of the proposal, etc.) that have to be followed pretty carefully before the rule can become official. And even once it’s official, the new new rule would be subject to lawsuits.
Just speculating, but, depending on how likely they think the Trump rule is to ultimately be ok’d by the courts and how much damage they think will be done by operating under the old rule vs. the Trump rule, working on the new new rule might not be the highest priority for the EPA. [Or they might actually be working on it right now and I just don’t know b/c environmental regulatory law isn’t my focus]
There is a thing called Chevron deference where the court is supposed to defer to the agencies to which power has been delegated by congress but obviously that’s going out the window in favor of naked partisanship moving forward.
The EPA made the rule while he was President. I’m sure that he personally had little if anything to do with it, but not every single person that worked for him was lazy/incompetent. Alternatively, I haven’t read the District Court opinion, but it is entirely possible that the reason it struck down the rule is because the court decided that the Agency didn’t follow the proper procedures when it made the rule.
Probably Scott Pruitt, who was appointed to the EPA by Trump. It’s easy to forget how many truly awful people Trump elevated to power alongside himself.
Because the administrative rulemaking process and our legal system are so slow and because Congress is essentially broken and nothing aside from handing money out to connected interests and the most innocuous shit ever makes it into legislation, many important aspects of the Clean Water Act are going to be in perpetual Stasis.
Don’t you live in Cali? If you want to play once in a while for fun, just go to a card room. I’m sure games are much, much easier.
Obviously you have to actually have to leave the house and drive, which can be a pain in SoCal, but if it’s just once in a while, it shouldn’t matter much.
I think this decision only affects the circuit it was made in. The Seattle District is back to using Rapanos guidance to make jurisdictional determinations. Rapanos came out in 2007 or so and was followed by the Clean Water Rule in 2015, then Trump’s Navigable Waters Protection Rule came out in 2017-18. Decisions made in the 4th circuit and Supreme Court decisions are binding nationwide.
I barely even poker any longer, so I’ll defer to your experience on this.
But my impression is that anyone who can beat low stakes online, sure as heck can beat something a lot higher than low stakes at Commerce (for example). So he’d never actually play low stakes at Commerce, unless he was playing like microstakes online. I guess that possible, but suzzer doesn’t strike me as a microstakes kind of guy.
I played $100 to $1000 tourneys before covid, largely for fun. But it’s a huge time suck and except for Hollywood Park, I find the the other players generally miserable to be around.
Online I could play SNGs on Saturday night and maybe actually make some money. Or play a few lazy tourneys on Sunday and get some other stuff done at the same time.