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

141–150 of 1001 posts

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

#141

Post by matthewdgreen »

biggieshellz wrote: post #6

Major questions doctrine. They ruled that the current law does not empower EPA to require producers to shift generation to different methods (e.g. natural gas, renewables), and that if Congress had meant for the law to do that, they would have written it explicitly. Congress can still pass a law empowering EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

> Congress can still pass a law empowering EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Congress gave the EPA broad discretion that it could have revoked -- using your argument -- at any moment. This issue has been bouncing around for over a decade, and Congress has systematically declined to do so.

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

#142

Post by ausbah »

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?

Roe v Wade was the court case giving a federal right to an abortion, that was struck down so it became a state's rights issue bc the federal gov't itself never passed a law guaranteeing the the right to an abortion. one major piece of criticism you'll hear again Democrats is that they have taken too much comfort is court precedent then actually passing laws when they were in power

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

#143

Post by swader999 »

golemotron wrote: post #70
hnrodey wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court is focused on laws, not outcomes - as it should be.

Indeed. People are upset with the Supreme Court recently, but what it has been doing is empowering democracy, which people are nominally for. You want effective standards, do the work and pass a law.

Yeah supreme court is doing its job just fine. Main issue seems to be Congress peeps voting party line with omnibus bills instead of discrete policy being legislated that they can vote freely on with just their constituents in mind. And then of course the money and corporate capture. I don't think elected members even write the bills anymore.

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

#144

Post by readthenotes1 »

ohboii20202 wrote: post #80

It's time to de-sanctify the Supreme Court. I really don't like having this unelected councils of wizards who get wield god-like "authority"-- it feels a bit gross in a democracy. I 'get it' w/ respect BrownvBoard, Miranda, etc, but at least in my lifetime the court hasn't done much to expand or protect my rights. Greatest hits from them are weird election cases (Florida 2000) making it easier for really shadowy/fuck…

"I really don't like having this unelected councils of wizards who get wield god-like "authority"-- it feels a bit gross in a democracy."

So you feel the Cabinet posts should also be elected positions?

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

#145

Post by fzeroracer »

biggieshellz wrote: post #6

Major questions doctrine. They ruled that the current law does not empower EPA to require producers to shift generation to different methods (e.g. natural gas, renewables), and that if Congress had meant for the law to do that, they would have written it explicitly. Congress can still pass a law empowering EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Do y'all not consider how the EPA came into being in the first place? It exists because a previous congress did do something and delegated their authority for a very specific reason. Like it was a joint effort between Republicans and Democrats even.

What this Supreme Court has decided to do is say that what they did doesn't matter, knowing that the current makeup in congress is in gridlock due to how modern day Republicans behave. Like the dissent was posted here. Congress explicitly empowered the EPA to work towards the best system of emission reduction.

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

#146

Post by outsidetheparty »

Ekaros wrote: post #42
mywittyname wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are limiting the ability of the government to make and enforce laws. The EPA is created with Congressional authority and is empowered to act on their behalf. Castrating the federal government will have negative repercussions. If the federal government doesn't have the power to control the states, then why bother having one?

They do, they just need to make laws that EPA can enforce. Not let EPA to act on its own. Isn't everyone always talking about unelected burecrauts going against the will of the people?

Not everyone. The phrase "unelected bureaucrats" is almost exclusively a Republican talking point in US politics, used when they want deregulation of exactly this sort.

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

#147

Post by openasocket »

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?

The decision made by the Supreme Court was that abortion was not a constitutionally-protected right, I doubt they would hold that allowing abortion was somehow unconstitutional. If that's what they wanted they would have gone ahead and declared that in their recent ruling. Instead they explicitly stated this is a matter for the legislature to decide.

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

#148

Post by xpe »

golemotron wrote: post #70
hnrodey wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court is focused on laws, not outcomes - as it should be.

Indeed. People are upset with the Supreme Court recently, but what it has been doing is empowering democracy, which people are nominally for. You want effective standards, do the work and pass a law.

> but what it has been doing is empowering democracy, which people are nominally for.

I know what you are trying to say, but it is too narrow.

If you think broader, the above is a laughable claim. Overturning the current understanding of laws is jarring to democracy. (Sure, there are times when it is morally necessary.) Why? Previous legislatures operated under the assumption that the Clean Air Act worked in a certain manner.

The Supreme Court has effectively overturned previous democratic work knowing full well the practical implications.

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

#149

Post by jibe »

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.

That is silly hyperbolic overreaction. The court literally upheld the EPA regulating greenhouse gasses at the point of creation. It upheld the specific regulations how coal was burned. All it said was the EPA wasn't empowered to move into grid management schemes. If congress wants to grant them that power, it can.

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

#150

Post by User23 »

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.

> Anyone can interpret anything as anything else, this is proven over and over throughout history.

  “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

  “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

  “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
I suppose that may be a workable political system, but I'm not certain it will produce outcomes anyone will like.
Post reply on HN