• Somewhiteguy@lemmy.world
    29·
    8 months ago

    Reading the whole Section, it seems they are leaning on this one phrase:

    "SEC. 505. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any citizen may commence a civil action on his own behalf "(1) against any person (including (i) the United States, and (ii) any other governmental instrumentality or agency to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution) who is alleged to be in violation of (A) an effluent standard or limitation under this Act or (B) an order issued by the Administrator or a State with respect to such a standard or limitation,

    Which is duplicated here in some part here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1365

    They’re very good at looking at the letter of the law without considering the context or purpose of why it was written. Any number of logical fallacies are used to jump every shark possible.

    • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
      13·
      8 months ago

      under this Act

      So they choose not to read these words right here? Because they might have a point if this and everything else after it were left off, but this literally only gives them authority to act in regards to this one specific law about water treatment.

      I guess you have to be used to taking things wildly out of context to fall in with the sovcit crowd…