[Godel_unicode]

This is how laws work in the US though, it’s called rule making authority. For example, the clean air act doesn’t specify any of the levels or pollutants, it empowers (or in that case creates) the Department or Agency to make rules within some often quite broad guidelines. That agency will then conduct research, hold public meetings that nobody goes to, and then make rules which are enforced under the law.

Edit: those laws sometimes get amended by congress and sometimes extended or have their enforcement deprioritized by the executive.

[drewcoo]

> the clean air act . . . empowers (or in that case creates) the Department or Agency to make rules within some often quite broad guidelines

I think the SCOTUS disagrees. This evidence among others:

https://nypost.com/2022/06/30/scotus-restricts-upholds-epas-...

Your claim is how I thought we all believed government worked for many decades, though.

[Godel_unicode]

I mean, that is how it works, but sometimes agencies overstep their delegated authority and are overruled by the courts. Then they have to go back to the congress and get their authority amended or not.

[Bloating]

That how its done, said the King. Been to plenty of stakeholder meetings where the outcome was pre-determined and the meeting was simply a rouse to demonstrate public involvement.

Survey asks: Rate the benefits of this plan

- Its good

- Its great

- Its awesome

99% of respondents said this plan is good or better

[Godel_unicode]

There is no chance that those were the three options at a federal public meeting, primarily because that type of survey is not how public meetings work.

It’s certainly the case that public meetings are not binding on the agency, nor should they be. We already have a process for determining the will of the people and it’s not “turf the problem to the 5-10 people who showed up to this meeting on a random Tuesday”.

Public meetings are one part of a larger process.