Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

#691

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:12 PM UTC

elmerfud wrote: post #85

gumby wrote: post #24

What’s interesting about this ruling (if you listened to the oral arguments and read the ruling) is that it appears to undercut the ability for any executive agency to make a rule, under them claim that congress cannot delegate its powers. So the FAA can’t determine and then require that aircraft have transponders. Congress has to do this. If they continue down this path it will be chaos.

I don't agree it will be chaos. Congress has for far too long abdicated what it is supposed to be directly responsible for to unelected bureaucrats that exist in agencies that are overseen by the executive branch of government. Congress is now free to focused on creating chaos between the people that elect them. When is the last time you've seen anyone from Congress campaign on any substantive issue? I've not seen it…

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

#692

Post by taylodl » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:12 PM UTC

ejb999 wrote: post #664

taylodl wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress delegated their authority to the EPA. Congress is empowered to retain that authority and they're empowered to overrule any EPA regulation they disagree with. Congress retains all the power. When it comes to the Supreme Court - that's it. Congress can't do anything about Supreme Court rulings. Your comparison of the EPA to the Supreme Court is misguided.

>>Congress can't do anything about Supreme Court rulings. Actually, they can, that is the whole point - congress has the power to pass laws - SC does not. That is exactly what the SC just told congress to do - their job.

If Congress is adhering to their oath and acting in good faith then they may not pass laws that violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution does or doesn't say, which impacts the laws Congress may or may not pass. Putting this together we conclude Congress can't do anything about Supreme Court rulings.

Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

#693

Post by lostcolony » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:13 PM UTC

throw10920 wrote: post #435

voisin wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of those unelected bureaucrats are experts in their fields due to their ability to focus for entire careers.

Is Congress not capable of listening to those experts and then publicly debating which of their suggestions to implement?

Even if we had a competent, non-bitterly partisan Congress, no.

Because then you're left with who is better convincing uninformed people; the experts, or paid lobbyists.

Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

#694

Post by rat87 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:14 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #306

Headlines about Supreme Court cases are almost uniformly misleading, because they suggest the Court is making decisions on policy issues rather than legal issues. The very first words of the opinion, on p. 2, make clear that the legal issue before the Court is very different: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf The Clean Air Act does not purport to give the EPA blanket regulatory authority ov…

That is because that's what they do. The supreme court is a political organ making very conservative political decisions. Much of the time the sort of headlines you seem to prefer would be navel gazing that's not important to most people and would be misleading distract from the real world result that it's gutting much of the EPAs powers? Why because conservatives don't like the EPA. I applaud the headline for getting at the truth of the matter

Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

#695

Post by burkaman » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:14 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #306

Headlines about Supreme Court cases are almost uniformly misleading, because they suggest the Court is making decisions on policy issues rather than legal issues. The very first words of the opinion, on p. 2, make clear that the legal issue before the Court is very different: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf The Clean Air Act does not purport to give the EPA blanket regulatory authority ov…

Read the dissent and see if you don't find it equally convincing. Supreme Court justices are very smart and very good at their jobs and it's not surprising that pretty much everything they write sounds reasonable and well-argued.

Key quote from the dissent:

> Section 111 of the Clean Air Act directs EPA to regulate stationary sources of any substance that “causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution” and that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

So, does CO2 qualify, or is it a "major new problem"? Sounds like a policy issue to me.

By the way, it definitely isn't a major new problem, the Nixon administration viewed CO2 and climate change as settled science in the 60s before he signed the Clean Air Act: https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/virtuallibr...

Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

#696

Post by tablespoon » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:14 PM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #598

matthewdgreen wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case could have been decided either way. The result clearly depends on the makeup of the Court and the justices' personal inclinations. As evidence: a very similar question was decided by the Court in 2009, with a completely different result [1]. [1] https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Prote...

This doesn't make OP's point less true: the headlines surrounding this decision are misleading. This is not judicial overreach, it's an application of a different theory of judicial review than we've become accustomed to, and it's not necessarily a bad one. If we don't like it when the police creatively interpret laws to target minorities, can we allow the EPA the authority to creatively interpret laws to target foss…

> If we don't like it when the police creatively interpret laws to target minorities, can we allow the EPA the authority to creatively interpret laws to target fossil fuel companies?

We can under the legal theory "What I want goes; what I don't want, no."

Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

#697

Post by mistrial9 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:14 PM UTC

dfxm12 wrote: post #631

Workaccount2 wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the EPA is kneecapped since they have to go through the most ineffective and hyper partisan congress since the founding of the country.

That's the strategy of the Federalist Society, make rulings via the undemocratic SCOTUS under the guise of giving states/congress power, but then also making sure that state elections are undemocratic via gerrymandering, voting laws, etc. It doesn't help that taking action on matters of national importance is inherently difficult in a Federalist government.

from Wikipedia '... The Federalist Society provides its 70,000 members with "intellectual sparring and professional grooming.'

without taking sides on this attorney gang, it seems to be like a bunch of professional boxers and others here are mad because they cannot fight. I do not want to fight lawyers, but calling them a conspiracy, when they specifically engage and practice debate professionally, is sort of pathetic honestly.

Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

#698

Post by rat87 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:14 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #679

JeremyNT wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Headlines about Supreme Court cases are almost uniformly misleading, because they suggest the Court is making decisions on policy issues rather than legal issues. This is the naive version of how SCOTUS works that they teach us in elementary school. History has shown that the Supreme Court is a political body with its own political agenda. The doctrine and precedent cited is used as a justification for whatever pol…

The majority of justices on the current Supreme Court have been doing a good job of sticking to the law rather than attempting to enact policy. What you’re describing is a good criticism of the mid-20th century Supreme Court, but the current Court has done a good job of rolling back those excesses.

Have you seen the Dobbs decision?

It's about what policies the judges personally prefer

Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

#699

Post by philosopher1234 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:15 PM UTC

Every surpreme court article makes me hate this community a bit more.

There is far too much obsessing over "their logic is consistent" and far too much intentional ignorance of the fact that they chose which logic to bring to bear on which issues, and that there are many other possible ways to apply consistent logic.

Their logic can be consistent and they can still be partisans, looking to implement a specific agenda.

I don't believe people on this site are too stupid to realize that, I believe they prefer not to, because they support the outcomes these rulings enact.

And given that, we are in a lot of trouble.

Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

#700

Post by rufus_foreman » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:15 PM UTC

asdajksah2123 wrote: post #334

PathOfEclipse wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

The Major Questions doctrine is an invention of the Roberts court that no court before has even considered. So yeah, they made up new rules, and yes, you're right, that the rules they made up to achieve a certain goal indicate that those goals are indeed correct. Edit: The unsaid part of the "Major Questions" doctrine is that what it basically means is that the only decision maker in the US government is the Supreme…

>> The Major Questions doctrine is an invention of the Roberts court that no court before has even considered

"The major questions doctrine originated in two Supreme Court decisions: MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. American Telephone & Telegraph in 1994 and FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation in 2000."

-- https://www.theregreview.org/2021/11/15/revesz-brunstein-reg...

Roberts was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2005.