Not because the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service was right but because “a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.”
Not because the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service was right but because “a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.”
Well, yes, courts are supposed to try matters of fact. Perhaps the standard for overturning an agency’s decision is high — that would make sense — but it’s silly of a court to claim it can’t substitute its judgment for an agency’s judgment. Happens all the time when agencies approve timber harvests, for example, or when FWS wanted to delist wolves, or…
H’m. Suddenly I see a pattern.
Reminds me of the Hadley CRU/Climategate investigations into misconduct. Since they won’t look into scientific claims, there’s no misconduct.
What are courts and investigations for, if they can’t look at the basics?