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

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

#121

Post by NeonVice » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:12 PM UTC

Clent wrote: post #88

User23 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not a conservative, but this ruling is good because it’s interpreting the law as written, which is the only fair way to apply it. Reducing the politicalization of the courts by getting judges away from ruling based on their desired policy rather than the law is probably insufficient, but it’s necessary to maintain general confidence in the system over time. If you want policy changes to handle whatever real or im…

No it's not. Anyone can interpret anything as anything else, this is proven over and over throughout history. This supreme court has been stomping the other branches of government. Congress created the EPA. If they don't like what they created, it's on them to fix it.

Congress created the EPA, but the court ruled that some regulations were outside of their charter. Congress can fix it by updating the EPA charter.

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

#122

Post by deelowe » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:12 PM UTC

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…

Yep. Wedge issues. I'm glad the SC is trying to force congress to do its job. If only someone would do something about executive orders, we may make some real progress.

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

#123

Post by bpodgursky » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:12 PM UTC

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.

It is not at all obvious that this is true. I think it's highly unlikely given that the federal government has almost unrestricted ability to pass laws about personal rights (either strictly or in practice, see the federal drinking age of 21, smoking, etc).

Even if it was, there's no reason not to test it.

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

#124

Post by vorpalhex » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:12 PM UTC

Clent wrote: post #88

User23 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not a conservative, but this ruling is good because it’s interpreting the law as written, which is the only fair way to apply it. Reducing the politicalization of the courts by getting judges away from ruling based on their desired policy rather than the law is probably insufficient, but it’s necessary to maintain general confidence in the system over time. If you want policy changes to handle whatever real or im…

No it's not. Anyone can interpret anything as anything else, this is proven over and over throughout history. This supreme court has been stomping the other branches of government. Congress created the EPA. If they don't like what they created, it's on them to fix it.

I interpret your comment to mean you agree with this decision.

...yeah no, obviously not. The law has meaning and that meaning is stable. Words mean things. If you are stuck in "Anyone can interpret anything as anything else" land you have fallen prey to being too clever.

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

#125

Post by yieldcrv » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:13 PM UTC

DantesKite wrote: post #50

I feel like a lot of people here would do well to try and understand the role of the Supreme Court, instead of treating it like a second version of Congress.

That's too complicated for most people. Although it does pain me to see people using their energy so ineffectively.

Protester: "6 unelected officials can't decide what I can do!"

Supreme Court: "That's literally what we just said!"

If Congress punts issues around indefinitely for its own political wheeling and dealing, it still cannot outsource a decision on those issues to other branches of the federal government. Whether thats to the executive branch or the judicial branch. Not hard! Except more of your elected representatives!

If consensus is impossible then that's the reality we live in, the means won't be able to justify the ends, you have to work within the consensus mechanism prescribed on every topic.

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

#126

Post by gruez » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:13 PM UTC

mn3gs wrote: post #111

jrochkind1 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you see a blow to the chevron deference doctrine as a good thing? I'd say that the doctrine properly tries to keep the supreme court, the least democratically responsible branch of US federal government, from being the most powerful of the three branches of government.

The least democratically responsible branch of the US federal government is the administrative state.

How are civil servants less responsible than supreme court justices that are appointed for life? At least with civil servants they can be fired.

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

#127

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:13 PM UTC

cloutchaser wrote: post #119

elmerfud wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

[deleted]

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

#128

Post by rootusrootus » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:13 PM UTC

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…

The Democrats have rarely had a filibuster-proof majority in congress that would allow them to codify Roe. And they have been working under the assumption that it was a settled issue. As I recall, even some of the recently appointed Supreme Court justices were under that impression as well. At least until they were sworn in.

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

#129

Post by enragedcacti » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:13 PM UTC

xpe wrote: post #51

cdot2 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The supreme court ruled that abortion is a state issue. Any law passed by congress would be struck down by the same ruling.

On what basis is this claim plausible? In my understanding -- and I've read good chunks of the leaked Dobbs opinion -- the above claim is not true. The Dobbs decision's reasoning is largely based on a lack of clear federal legislation saying that abortion is legal.

you are correct that the dobb's ruling does not restrict federal abortion regulation, but it is an open question of whether this court would overturn federal abortion legislation as not being related strongly enough to interstate commerce.

Of course that ruling should cut both ways and eliminate the possibility of a federal ban as well, but as we've seen the majority is willing to overturn precedent both as old as 50 years and as young as 2 years (see Gorsuch dissent on Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta) so its possible they would find the rational to uphold a ban even if they strike down a law mandating access.

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

#130

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:13 PM UTC

31835843 wrote: post #99

jrochkind1 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you see a blow to the chevron deference doctrine as a good thing? I'd say that the doctrine properly tries to keep the supreme court, the least democratically responsible branch of US federal government, from being the most powerful of the three branches of government.

The Supreme Court can just ignore its own precedents, so this doesn’t really help.

> Supreme Court can just ignore its own precedents

I’m not a fan of the current Court, but stare decisis has never been binding. Landmark rulings are landmarks because the create or break precedent. Courts have been doing that since there were courts.