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

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

#171

Post by vkou » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:19 PM UTC

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?

When people complain about unelected bureaucrats, what they actually mean is that they are unhappy that the executive is doing its job, while the legislature, which has the power to change the direction of the executive, is choosing not to change that direction.

Its some weird Schroedinger's legislature, where it is legally empowered to direct the executive, it chooses not to, and somehow, that choice is the executive's fault, and we need an activist judge to rescue us from it. Instead, of the normal process of 'if the legislature is unhappy with the direction of the executive, it could just issue a course-correction by passing a law'.

The republicans know they can't pass that law right now, so they are using the courts to avoid having to pass it. Then they'll seize control of the legislature in the midterms, and they won't need to pass it. The beauty of having a stacked court, is that you can sit around and do nothing, and not have to write any unpopular legislature, while you sit around and lay all the blame for any consequences of bad governance on appointed-for-life judges.

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

#172

Post by ejb999 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:19 PM UTC

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #45

Great, so now we're reliant on congress to get something done. The same congress that's sat on its hands for the past 30 years and has been shown to be completely incapable of addressing the issue. This is a massive blow to the US being able to reach emissions targets. Every day we're one step closer to the 'business as usual' path that leaves the world 3-4c hotter. That's a catastrophic scenario.

>>This is a massive blow to the US being able to reach emissions targets.

Whose targets though? 'Shouldn't we the people' have a say? i.e. shouldn't congress actually hold the hearings, digest the info and go on the record voting for or against important items?

We don't let the IRS set tax rates, we should not let unelected bureaucrats decide what the environmental goals are - elect people you think represent your priorities, have them go on the record supporting or opposing important decisions, and then pass a law the establishes frameworks to the agencies in charge under which they operate.

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

#173

Post by AlotOfReading » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:19 PM UTC

Miner49er wrote: post #46

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.

I don't think this is correct. Congress can definitely delegate its power, they are just saying that Congress didn't delegate the power the EPA is trying to use in this case. From the final paragraph of the opinion: "But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an…

How do you write an entire opinion about delegation without mentioning Chevron? As the dissent points out, that delegation is inherently required to do the EPA's job and the court has previously accepted their technical and policy expertise in this area.

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

#174

Post by xpe » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:19 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…

Please do not equate the parties. It is incredibly naïve to see two parties that aren't perfect and somehow wave your arms and say they are equivalently bad. They are clearly different both in terms of their policy objectives and their willingness to stay within the realm of truth and science.

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

#175

Post by peter422 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:19 PM UTC

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…

But then it’s all very self-contradictory. How are people supposed to have faith in the court when it makes a decision, reaffirms it many times over nearly 50 years, then just changes its mind on a dime?

The judicial branch has a responsibility to itself for self-consistent reasoning, which it has completely abandoned this term.

The court is not supposed to change dramatically with every election, that’s what the legislative branch does. And yet, the court did.

It’s legal of course, the court can do what it wants. But it can (and has) lost approval and legitimacy, which at the end of the day were it’s most valuable currency.

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

#176

Post by golemotron » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:20 PM UTC

aaomidi wrote: post #115

golemotron wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For example scotus coming out in the next few months and going against the ruling that allowed gay marriage would be empowering for democracy? The scotus is still operating in this environment. I don’t see how “fuck it throwing you to the wolves” has any immediate or future benefits?

A number of people on both sides of the issue have noted that the country was on an arc toward more liberal abortion laws before Roe. When SCOTUS steps in and decides issues without a solid Constitutional basis it interferes with the consensus process of democracy and produces division. The same is likely true with the other privacy rulings.

Have some faith in people. Inventing rights and privileges autocratically is definitely problematic in a democracy. It's better to do the work of persuasion. We all have to live together. Note as well, the number of countries who have arrived at gay marriage through legislation rather than judicial fiat. It's a more respectful way to go.

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

#177

Post by JohnHaugeland » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:20 PM UTC

Miner49er wrote: post #165

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.

We managed for hundreds of years.

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

#178

Post by justinhj » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:20 PM UTC

pupppet wrote: post #106

Everyone stating this is a good thing because it's not the Supreme Court's job to do xyz are conveniently ignoring the fact these decisions are being made due to tribalism, not out of some concern for rule of law.

No post body was provided.

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

#179

Post by JohnHaugeland » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:20 PM UTC

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.

Oh stop it.

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

#180

Post by xpe » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:20 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…

You act like this was completely up to the Democrats. Please point to a time in history when codifying Roe with legislation would have passed the Senate.