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

151–160 of 1001 posts

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

#151

Post by bpodgursky »

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?

The democrats have the senate majority. They just have to be willing to pass laws that the moderates will vote for. For dumb political reasons, they refuse to do this, and this is a forcing function to make them act like adults.

They could even get ~2 Republican votes for broad abortion rights, and likely more if they passed a targeted bill about the health of the mother, incest, etc.

As recently as a decade ago the democrats had a supermajority and passed sweeping healthcare reform bills. It's really not an insurmountable barrier.

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

#152

Post by pigtailgirl »

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,

-- I'd think that if you wanted to progress your country and change it toward your perspective - it would take folks moving to the areas they're uncomfortable to do the work in those communities - from an outside perspective it seems the conservatives are going to swallow the liberals in the states simply because they're more comfortable literally going to other areas of the country to change/bolster views? (I don't live in the USA)- however - I suppose that's a lot to ask - that said- it's fairly common in some countries --

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

#153

Post by timeon »

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.

> things that the majority doesn’t actually want

Majority of square feet of land or majority of people?

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

#154

Post by NeonVice »

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?

Because they are pandering for votes. They know that the average citizen doesn't know that the law would be deemed unconstitutional based on the most recent ruling.

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

#155

Post by clukic »

The EPA was created to empower experts to make informed decisions with the goal of benefiting the public good. The science of regulating pollutants is hard, and neither our representatives nor the voters who elect them and ultimately hold them accountable should be expected to develop that expertise.

The vested interests who benefit from the fossil fuel industry control the flow of information to our representatives through lobbyists, and to the public through advertising. Panels of experts in their field are harder to influence.

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

#156

Post by waterproof »

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.

It is valuable for gov’t agencies to be able to act broadly on their mandates without needing congress to dictate everything. As the dissent puts it, “A key reason Congress makes broad delegations like Section 111 is so an agency can respond, appropriately and commensurately, to new and big problems.”

We can hope that Congress will step up and legislate, but that seems pretty unrealistic to me. I fear that this is just the latest wave of successes by the party that wants our government to be as toothless and inept as possible and already has a stranglehold on Congress for the foreseeable future.

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

#157

Post by briffle »

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.

I understand your point, but at the same time, I don't want the same "it is like a series of tubes" guys mandating some airplane technology pushed by the highest campaign contribution either.

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

#158

Post by ausbah »

NeonVice wrote: post #104
micromacrofoot wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it's not like you can infer other rights at all

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process

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

#159

Post by teucris »

xthrowawayxx wrote: post #29
jeffbee wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, but that would require Congress to actually do something, which hasn't happened in the last 18 months so we shouldn't expect it to start. Congress could have mooted this case with ordinary statutory procedures at any point, but did not.

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.

I agree, but the current political climate has made consensus appear as weakness.

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

#160

Post by xpe »

hnrodey wrote: post #28
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…

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

It depends what you mean. Of course the mechanisms under their control are mostly about legal interpretation and Constitutionality. If you read a lot of Supreme Court opinions you'll see that the justices do care about outcomes to a large degree.
Post reply on HN