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

131–140 of 1001 posts

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

#131

Post by tzs »

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.

> [...] 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.

I don't think that scales. When some group of people is large enough and has enough different things going on it has to delegate regulation making. There is just too much for the top level of management to be directly regulating everything.

The larger the entity grows and the more it has going on the more regulation making needs to be delegated. At some point you reach the point where even critical regulation has to be delegated.

We passed that point, I think, a long time ago in all the large first world economies.

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

#132

Post by throwaway0a5e »

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.

Stop being obtuse. The majority of federal law exists only because broad interpretations of the few subjects the feds were granted the ability to regulate. If abortion was intertwined with interstate commerce or national defense it would be regulated. Of course there's BS that's just as detached as abortion that gets regulated federally but if those subjects were big ideological issues and got the same scrutiny they likely would not be.

It's unfortunate that there isn't a stronger right to bodily autonomy enshrined in the constitution but that's tangential here.

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

#133

Post by cogman10 »

xpe wrote: post #40
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.

This statement is an obvious assumption of democracy. Am I missing something more?

The issue is one of "arms racing".

Consider, for example, how the FDA operates. They have a broad mandate to keep food clean and drugs safe. They don't have an explicit mandate of "you must only regulate tylenol and aspirin, we need to pass a law for new drugs each time they come up."

This ruling finds the EPA, who has the mandate to keep pollutants out of the air, can't determine that CO2 is a pollutant. Why is that? The 2016 clean air act specifically gave them the power to regulate air pollutants.

The only answer is political activism. There is no difference between the FDA's broad mandate and the EPA's broad mandate.

I recommend reading the dissent on this case. It makes it absolutely clear that this is an EPA power. The conservatives couldn't get new laws passed repealing the EPA, so instead they packed the court with political activists so they could make law from the bench.

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

#134

Post by sdenton4 »

User23 wrote: post #31
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…

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…

...said the unelected supreme court, as it enacted sweeping policy changes over the course of two weeks.

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

#135

Post by brodouevencode »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #109
scifibestfi wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

By codified I think most people refer to it being enshrined into the Constitution.

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

#136

Post by aaomidi »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #61
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.

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.

So you want for women to have their basic rights for us to go through a constitutional amendment path? Interesting. This feels like fascism through paperwork.

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

#137

Post by anon291 »

Marazan wrote: post #39
Bostonian wrote: post #22

What the government should do about climate change should be decided by legislation agreed upon by the President and Congress, not by an administrative agency.

Maybe they could create an agency for the protection of the environment and delegate some authority to it.

Or they could legislate. What's the purpose of electing lawmakers if they just hire random bureaucrats. If they want advice they have the money to get that advice

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

#138

Post by davidw »

cujo wrote: post #101
pigtailgirl wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

-- 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,

> 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.

Also, don't forget that a lot of blue states (if that's where someone wants to live) have been really bad at providing enough housing, so are pretty difficult for someone to move to if they don't have a lot of money.

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

#139

Post by zrail »

rajup wrote: post #65
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.

> The supreme court ruled that abortion is a state issue. Any law passed by congress would be struck down by the same ruling. Is it? Then why am I reading news today about the Democrats wanting to suspend the filibuster for a federal abortion law?

The court ruled in Dobbs that the decision reached in Roe v Wade was improper because there is no right to privacy "deeply rooted" in the Constitution or traditions of the United States, which basically means that if the court sticks with this definition they get to roll back any decisions that they don't like, disregarding two hundred years of precedent.

The fundamental problem is that large important social policy decisions have been made as court cases rather than legislation for the past 50 years. If Congress actually made laws that explicitly granted rights to the people then we wouldn't be in this situation, but by passing the buck to the court they can claim that problems have been solved without actually having to get their hands dirty or face their constituents.

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

#140

Post by vorpalhex »

willis936 wrote: post #62
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.

The senate is affirmative action for rural areas. Why do we accept minority rule?

Tyranny of the majority. New York City doesn't make rules for Eerie, Indiana.

NYC can make rules for NYC.

Post reply on HN