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

161–170 of 1001 posts

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

#161

Post by seoaeu »

yieldcrv wrote: post #125
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. W…

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

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

Bullshit. The court was perfectly happy telling millions of people they had no right to an abortion. They’re just a bunch of partisan hacks

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

#162

Post by cogman10 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #128
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…

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.

Even when they had a filibuster-proof majority, they didn't have a majority that believed in abortion rights. Some of the democrats in obama's brief filibuster proof session were pro life. Even now, at least 1 democrat senator is pro life.

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

#163

Post by davidw »

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.

I'm old enough to remember when I could grudgingly accept that there was some wisdom in decisions I disagreed with, even if perhaps not enough to sway me. But I could see something argued intelligently.

This is just nakedly partisan stuff going on. I think viewing it through that lens - "we're going to do what we want because it fits our politics" - makes the most sense.

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

#164

Post by gonzo41 »

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.

Don't pick a country that's between the tropics of Capricorn or Cancer, or you'll just be escaping to a hellscape shortly anyway.

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

#165

Post by Miner49er »

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.

It is impossible to keep partisanship out of the court, so it is a lot like a second version of Congress.

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

#166

Post by gruez »

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?

It might be obvious, but I feel like it's lost due to partisan motivated reasoning. eg. when your preferred party doesn't control the senate, then the filibusterer is an important part part of democracy that forces widespread consensus, but when your party does control the senate the filibusterer is a undemocratic tactic used by the minority to obstruct the majority.

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

#167

Post by SantalBlush »

davidw wrote: post #114
ericmay wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to caution other people who are feeling despondent and thinking of leaving that this is exactly what they want. They want you to give them your homes, your relationships, your friends, your resources, your job and everything you've cared about. So instead of being cynical and celebrating people who are abandoning ship, which I totally understand, we should instead spend time uniting people in opposition. Sta…

I've been pondering this myself. At a certain point, in places going downhill, like Venezuela or Russia, the smart move is just to get out. Tough to decide when that moment is, though, I guess.

We have a long way to go before we can reasonably be compared with Venezuela.

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

#168

Post by 40acres »

I really don't understand the decision. In my mental model the executive branch exists to implement the laws that Congress passes, Congress deliberately leaves leeway in laws to give the executive branch flexibility, this flexibility has been previously affirmed by the court decision Chevron v. NRDC.

This decision seems to give more power to Congress but on net I think it makes the laws Congress passes weaker because it strips away the effectiveness of the implementation.

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

#169

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN