Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 1001 posts

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

#101

Post by cujo »

pigtailgirl wrote: post #53
itslennysfault wrote: post #7

These guys are on a roll. Yesterday was giving states legal rights over indigenous nations. Today this. I was already planning to expat soon, but this all makes me want to try to hurry that timeline. Sorry to those of you that are stuck in this hellscape.

-- America began the process of un-uniting quite some time ago - it's unsurprising that the supreme court is reflecting that - curious what Americans here think about this? - much of the country is trending towards "live in the state that you're comfortable in" - seems somewhat reasonable? --

Thoughts:

1. Moving is hard. Even harder for people that have little means. Living in the state you're comfortable isn't going to work for a lot of people.

2. Currently, it doesn't feel like "the state you're comfortable in" will be that way for long in this country.

3. Moving to a country you're comfortable in is the same principle, so why not do that if you're already comfortable moving?

But to play this card,

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

#102

Post by tristor »

rajup wrote: post #71
lotsofpulp wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the US Congress passed an amendment that stated abortion is legal nationwide, then the Supreme Court would not be able to strike it down as that would be the new federal law.

Is a constitutional amendment different than a federal law when it comes to how it’s treated by the SCOTUS?

Yes, but it’s subtle. The mandate of SCOTUS is a check against the other branches of the government to ensure they’re following the Constitution. By passing a Constitutional Amendment, it essentially makes the contents of such inherently constitutional. A Federal law could be (and has been) struck down as being unconstitutional.

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

#103

Post by wkearney99 »

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…

have you met any congress personnel? fence posts would be insulted to be compared to some of them.

there's definitely a gap between regulatory officials making regulations and legislature codifying the details. This is where appointing heads of those departments is supposed to come to bear.

It's a mess, but the answer isn't to let lobbyists and special interests burn the house down.

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

#104

Post by NeonVice »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #78
NeonVice wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution and therefore each state has the power to legislate it as they see fit. Any federal abortion law would be deemed unconstitutional on that basis.

The majority of federal law isn't mentioned in the constitution. Come on now.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Abortion regulation powers were not delegated within the US Constitution and therefore those powers go to the states.

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

#105

Post by swader999 »

Victerius wrote: post #58
xthrowawayxx wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a good thing that laws can't pass without sufficient consensus. If you can bypass consensus for the greater good then so can the other side.

The rise of China is testing and will continue to test this assumption. The Chinese government does not require consensus. It can build 40,000 kilometers of high speed rail in just a few years. It can pull hundreds of millions from poverty. It can shut down entire companies and industries overnight (e.g. private school tutoring), jail corrupt corporate executives, and in general coerce compliance to any law. Do you k…

We can do the same kinds of things in war time and have.

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

#107

Post by artemonster »

cujo wrote: post #82
akmarinov wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re looking to become an immigrant somewhere?

Is this supposed to be a gotcha? That's clearly what OP is saying. What makes that unreasonable?

In „their“ mind that a very „bad“ thing, I guess.

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

#108

Post by laverya »

NeonVice wrote: post #64
bpodgursky wrote: post #30

I guess it's time for congress to actually pass laws (first abortion, and now greenhouse gasses). Going to be a lot of anger about the results this court season, but I honestly think it's going to be healthier for democracy overall if congress stop leaning on the courts and bureaucracy to make critical regulations.

Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution and therefore each state has the power to legislate it as they see fit. Any federal abortion law would be deemed unconstitutional on that basis.

The current interpretation of the Commerce Clause is large enough to legislate essentially everything.

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

#109

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

scifibestfi wrote: post #83
qalmakka wrote: post #14

The fact that people can't see that the conservatives are basically advocating worldwide for short term economic growth in exchange for basically our future is appalling to me. I am afraid we will see an immense amount of instability, increased poverty, mass migrations and authoritarian regimes rising up due to the fact that we couldn't manage to convince people that those parties do not care about them. In a previou…

This sounds like GPT-3 trained on partisan talking points. If it's not, isn't it weird that you didn't notice that Democrats keep promising to codify Roe but never do? They had 40 years!! If they solved the problem, they wouldn't have that to campaign on and raise money with. Keep people enraged to get their vote. You're spot on about that, but it's how both parties operate. Never solve the problem so it'll be there…

Roe v Wade becomes codified, abortion becomes legal in all 50 states, immediately there is a lawsuit, they appeal to the supreme court, supreme court chooses to hear the case, supreme court repeals the codified Roe v. Wade.

IANAL but how does codifying Roe v Wade change this?

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

#110

Post by [deleted] »

bandyaboot wrote: post #96
lotsofpulp wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the US Congress passed an amendment that stated abortion is legal nationwide, then the Supreme Court would not be able to strike it down as that would be the new federal law.

They could rule the law to be unconstitutional. And they would do just that.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN