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

211–220 of 1001 posts

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

#211

Post by voisin »

ejb999 wrote: post #172
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 pr…

> shouldn't congress actually hold the hearings, digest the info and go on the record voting for or against important items?

Of course, but this will never happen. So if the only positive outcome of an action is a long tail event, then maybe the action shouldn’t be taken. We have to look at the expected value of this, which is that people less versed than the experts suddenly making decisions they had previously relegated to the experts. Chaos.

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

#212

Post by delecti »

cdot2 wrote: post #37
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 supreme court ruled that abortion is a state issue. Any law passed by congress would be struck down by the same ruling.

They ruled that there is no constitutional guaranteed right to abortion, and in lieu of any federal legislation the decision defaults to the states. They did not rule that the federal government cannot have a say on abortion.

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

#213

Post by _jal »

nradov wrote: post #188
40acres wrote: post #168

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…

That's not really how it works. If Congress wants the executive branch to have leeway then they need to explicitly grant it.

Correction: That's exactly how it worked until a large change in the court composition decided to change the rules.

People like to pretend that SCOTUS decisions are retroactively true, that somehow they're discovering legal nuances previously overlooked.

That's not how it works. As the cliche goes, they're not final because they're right, they're right because they're final.

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

#214

Post by swader999 »

ohCh6zos wrote: post #68
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…

If nationalism is a more general form of fascism, are all, or almost all governments prior to the modern era fascist?

There's something to be said for rules and policy being adapted to a locale. What's right for people in one region might not work for some in another. You'll get a tyranny of the majority in much of your life the broader you go away from local governance. I agree there's benefit to have federal and international rules and policy but it's more nuanced than just saying sentiments for keeping power at a national level are fascist.

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

#215

Post by solarpunk »

rabuse wrote: post #186
Miner49er wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The constitution isn't partisan though.

They made booze illegal using it lmao

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

#216

Post by thesiniot »

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #177
Miner49er wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That was before the Senate hijacked the normal nomination process in 2016.

The court has been an illegitimate and partisan body ever since Garland's seat was denied.

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

#217

Post by yieldcrv »

peter422 wrote: post #175
yieldcrv wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 leg…

It is rare for the Supreme Court to act as a second Congress. When it has, those are the cases that most likely get overruled. Additionally, old cases with poor and antiquated assumptions get overturned (not relevant here, just showing a consistency in what is and can be expected to be reviewed.)

Opposing sides of that court have said the exact same thing about Roe v Wade. Ruth Bader Ginsberg even said "this is pretty weak, going to need Congress here", no different than Justice Alito on the opposite side.

I think your perspective is very common, I think it is disingenuous for different people that should know better to promote that perspective. There is so much the elected representatives and the people can do. This crisis of confidence perspective relies on nobody actually reading these cases.

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

#218

Post by nhinck »

rabuse wrote: post #186
Miner49er wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The constitution isn't partisan though.

Even if that was true, which it isn't, the interpretation of the constitution undeniably is.

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

#220

Post by SilasX »

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #177
Miner49er wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The first hundred had a deadly civil war.
Post reply on HN