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

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

#271

Post by chronotis » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:33 PM UTC

zionic wrote: post #232

davidw wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> This is just nakedly partisan stuff going on. The problem is much of the left’s gains over the last few decades have been based on shaky legal/constitutional ground. Even leftist judges like Ginsberg admitted that, and they were counting on the mistakes being in place for too long to correct (precedent). Now all that technical debt is coming back to kick our ass. This isn’t the end of the world though, Congress can…

In this new climate, it will take more than laws. Permanence will require constitutional amendments (which is actually how most things get rooted at the state level, the state constitutions change pretty regularly).

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

#272

Post by camgunz » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:33 PM UTC

scifibestfi wrote: post #208

xpe wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please do equate them. Neither stays at all within the realm of truth and science. I can't believe anyone still genuinely thinks either party does in the year 2022.

Are you legitimately "both sides"-ing Democrats and Republicans here? Wake me up when a horde of armed Democrats storms the Capitol.

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

#273

Post by cryptonector » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:33 PM UTC

wkearney99 wrote: post #103

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…

have you met any congress personnel? fence posts would be insulted to be compared to some of them. there's definitely a gap between regulatory officials making regulations and legislature codifying the details. This is where appointing heads of those departments is supposed to come to bear. It's a mess, but the answer isn't to let lobbyists and special interests burn the house down.

It's not like the regulators are incorruptible. The regulators get captured all the time. I don't know what the right answer is here.

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

#274

Post by xpe » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:33 PM UTC

scifibestfi wrote: post #208

xpe wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please do equate them. Neither stays at all within the realm of truth and science. I can't believe anyone still genuinely thinks either party does in the year 2022.

You are defining an arbitrary boundary and making a false dichotomy. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Stop putting them in the same category. This is useless and nondescriptive. Here's what I mean by that : if you were to build a machine learning classifier with a decision tree algorithm, what do you think some of the most important differentiators would be?

Tell me which party tends to acknowledge scientific evidence more often.

A fool sets impossible standards and moans that everyone falls short.

Accept reality. Choose from the better options. There is no perfect except in mathematics (and maybe some physics we don't know yet)

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

#275

Post by _jal » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #245

_jal wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> how it worked until a large change in the court composition decided to change the rules FDR created the modern administrative state. Chevron was decided in the 80s. None of this is how it’s always been.

Quibble all you like, it has been that way for living memory, and reversing this is going to cause an enormous amount of chaos, because the modern state is built on these assumptions.

This is not some minor change, you're going to throw the federal government into chaos. I know that's the goal for a lot of people, but they should have the courage to admit that.

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

#276

Post by teakettle42 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

Miner49er wrote: post #200

rabuse wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The constitution isn't partisan though.

How it is interpreted is.

Which is why “textualism” is the only appropriate interpretation an unelected court should be using.

It’s not their job to write laws or advance policy, it’s their job to enforce the constitution as written.

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

#277

Post by bandyaboot » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

NeonVice wrote: post #154

rajup wrote: post #65

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. 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.

If you’re talking about the decision overturning Roe, it has literally nothing to do with whether a federal abortion law would be constitutional.

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

#278

Post by ejb999 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #35

Ekaros wrote: post #10

Seems like they are really working towards democracy. Making them actually make the laws.

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 are limiting the ability of the government to make and enforce laws.

They are in fact doing the exact opposite - telling elected officials that you need to make and enforce laws - not give that responsibility to someone else.

Do you think the IRS should be able to set tax rates? then how is this different?

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

#279

Post by the_doctah » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #35

Ekaros wrote: post #10

Seems like they are really working towards democracy. Making them actually make the laws.

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?

What's the point of states?

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

#280

Post by Bostonian » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

I agree with the Court. Quoting a WSJ story https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-limits-environmen....

'WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s powers to restrict greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, in a decision that could limit the authority of government agencies to address major policy questions without congressional approval.

Elaborating on earlier decisions, the high court said federal agencies need explicit authorization from Congress to decide issues of major economic and political significance, drawing on a principle known as the “major questions doctrine.”

In his decision for the 6-3 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said Congress never gave the EPA the authority to change the methods a power plant uses—regulations known as “generation shifting” requirements.

Chief Justice Roberts said that forcing a nationwide transition away from coal may be a “sensible” idea, but the EPA cannot do so without a clear authority from Congress.

“A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,” the chief justice wrote, adding that the “EPA claimed to discover an unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority in the vague language of a long-extant, but rarely used, statute.”'