There’s
a
decent
argument
that
no
single
human
being
did
more
to
prove
the
merits
of
the
Chevron
doctrine
than
law
professor
Richard
Epstein.
Before
the
Supreme
Court’s
last
Term
shift,
the
law
recognized
that,
when
it
comes
to
scientific
disputes
over
what
constitutes
toxic
waste
in
vague,
open-ended
public
safety
laws,
the
courts
should
default
to
the
actual
government
scientists
charged
with
implementing
those
statutes.
Now
John
Roberts
gets
to
decide
how
much
rat
poison
is
safe
to
put
in
a
hot
dog.
COMFORTING!
But
Epstein
was,
unintentionally,
way
ahead
of
the
game
in
proving
why
this
result
is
so
deadly.
Epstein
took
to
the
pages
of
the
Hoover
Institution
on
March
18,
2020,
to
explain
to
all
the
bedwetting
doctors
and
public
health
experts
out
there
that
he,
as
a
LAWYER,
had
already
considered
the
arrival
of
COVID
upon
American
shores
and
determined
that
it
was
all
much
ado
about
nothing.
All
Epstein
really
needed
to
reach
this
conclusion
was
some
out-of-context
data
reported
by
the
always-reliable-on-the-subject
Chinese
government.
And
while,
at
the
time
and
to
this
day,
there
are
actual
medical
debates
over
the
relative
merits
of
lockdowns
vs.
other
prophylactic
measures,
Epstein
bypassed
citing
these
battles
of
the
experts
to
issue
his
own
analysis.
In
the
end,
Epstein
reasoned,
the
virus
then
rampaging
across
Europe
would
only
kill
about
500
people!
By
noon
of
March
24,
2020
—
less
than
one
week
after
publishing
his
article!
—
the
death
toll
in
the
U.S.
already
reached
592.
Epstein
said
the
“500”
number
was
“smaller
than
I
intended
to
state”
and
revised
his
figure
to…
5,000.
Epstein
and
Hoover
stopped
making
corrections
after
his
new
estimate
confirmed
his
buffoonery.
But
here’s
what
he
said
at
that
time:
So
my
adjusted
figure,
however
tweaked,
remains
both
far
lower,
and
I
believe
far
more
accurate,
than
the
common
claim
that
there
could
be
a
million
dead
in
the
U.S…..
The
current
U.S.
death
toll
from
COVID
is
somewhere
north
of
1.2
million
right
now.
Fast
forward
to
today
and
a
Federalist
Society
webinar
about
the
post-Chevron
legal
landscape.
It
seems
Epstein’s
experience
as
an
armchair
scientist
whiffing
on
public
health
with
deadly
consequences
—
Donald
Trump’s
administration
enthusiastically
clung
to
Epstein’s
baseless
analysis
at
the
outset
of
the
pandemic
—
has
taught
him
some
humility.
LOL,
just
kidding!
I’ll
bet
he
was.
A
shocking
number
of
lawyers
are
positively
convinced
that
they
know
more
about
every
subject
based
on
three
years
of
torts
and
civ
pro
than
real
scientists.
It
develops
when
a
lawyer
confuses
doing
the
research
to
explain
the
merits
of
16th
century
oil
painting
with
thinking
they’re
qualified
to
be
a
painter.
One
is
about
cultivating
a
flexible
mind
respecting
the
lawyer’s
gift
for
marshaling
and
communicating
expert
information
and
the
other
is
about
being
an
idiot.
It’s
a
special
brand
of
hubris
possessed
only
by
lawyers
and
your
friend
who
thinks
you’d
“have
a
lot
of
fun”
at
their
improv
night.
The
irony,
of
course,
is
that
the
Chevron
doctrine
began
as
a
right-wing
troll
that
could
allow
Reagan-era
administrators
to
bypass
Congress
and
lift
restrictions
on
whole
swaths
of
sludge
while
finally
counting
ketchup
as
a
vegetable
for
school
lunches.
But
it
quickly
morphed
into
its
more
logical
end
—
a
vehicle
for
trained
experts
to
fulfill
laws
that
Congress
intentionally
leaves
open-ended.
Because
legislators
aren’t
equipped
to
predict
every
potentially
toxic
substance
that
could
ever
be
invented,
but
can
command
agency
scientists
to
“stop
people
from
poisoning
lakes.”
But
apparently
Epstein
knew
even
back
then
that
he
and
his
fellow
law-degree-holding
friends
would
be
better
at
science
than
all
the
scienticians
out
there!
Now,
thanks
to
the
Supreme
Court,
he
can
realize
his
dream
of
empowering
an
army
of
J.D.s
to
“well,
actually”
every
nerd
who
successfully
passed
organic
chemistry.
Earlier:
Remember
When
A
Law
School
Prof
Said
Only
500
Americans
Would
Die
Of
COVID?
Whatever
Happened
With
That?
John
Roberts
Says
Judges
Should
Decide
How
Much
Rat
Poison
Is
Too
Much
For
Your
Hot
Dogs
Mask
Mandate
Struck
Down
Because
‘Sanitation’
Doesn’t
Mean
‘Keeping
Things
Clean’
For…
Reasons
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.