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

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

#321

Post by phpisthebest » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:40 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #163

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.

Which is ironic since FDR most of the Court decisions were nakedly partisan in the other direction, massively expanding the power and scope of the federal government well beyond would should be constitutionally allowable

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

#322

Post by rayiner » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:40 PM UTC

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…

Nobody denies that "Congress deliberately leaves leeway in laws to give the executive branch flexibility."

The whole point of this case is that Congress gave the EPA leeway to decide standards and scrubbing technologies for toxic pollutants, and the EPA stretched that leeway far beyond what Congress intended to address a completely different problem involving a non-toxic alleged pollutant.

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

#323

Post by system2 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:40 PM UTC

So bizarre to see USA to be derailed like this, by Americans. Difficult to understand what the long game is. By hurting the country, who is benefiting?

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

#324

Post by barelysapient » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:40 PM UTC

chronotis wrote: post #271

zionic wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Exactly this. And by putting this off, we've avoided the hard work to get the laws we deserve. After all, if the courts can just wave a wand and make something a `right`, who cares who you vote for or if you even vote at all?

I think the temporary pain will be worth it in the long run as we do the hard work to pass the laws the majority agrees will improve the environment, human rights, and so on.

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

#325

Post by mc32 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:41 PM UTC

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 hopeful they will visit AUMF at some point and revert back to having the Congress have to explicitly authorize war and also not redefine things as near-war but not war. Deploying troops in active conflicts = war.

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

#326

Post by asdajksah2123 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:41 PM UTC

It's not clear to me if the court has ruled broadly regarding delegation here (we still need experts to read through the entire ruling), but they've clearly indicated that they believe that delegation is not okay with them.

Which basically means that this court will reduce the Federal government to a non-entity very soon, making its functioning absolutely impossible.

That may even be "constitutionally" correct (although no court since the founding of the US has ever found that to be an issue...this is an entirely new creation by a few members of this court), but it makes the US completely incapable of operating in the modern world.

If you thought China taking over Africa because the US govt was distracted by the Middle East (and isolationism) was bad, it's gonna get way worse when US federal agencies will constantly need to check back to see if they even have the power to do anything because the current SC has decided to curtail Federal powers in a way that every court before had absolutely no problem with.

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

#327

Post by enragedcacti » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:41 PM UTC

methehack wrote: post #190

Quoted post unavailable.

A huge piece of this is that they are creating judicial tests that are hugely subjective.

They are happy to issue this ruling because when some policy they like comes around they have given themselves the legal cover to interpret it as a constrained delegation of power.

The same can be said for the historical tests they have introduced. They ask that judges look for the "history and tradition" of various activities knowing that they don't have to defer to an actual historian or linguist. They can find the history that agrees with them or form the question such that the history agrees with them. e.g. in the case of Dobbs, the question they asked was "is access to abortion part of our history or tradition?" when they could have just as reasonably asked "is privacy and bodily autonomy part of our history or tradition?"

It is calvinball as jurisprudence and the cases this term are far from the last time we will see these 5 blatantly contradict themselves and/or good faith interpretation to reach a policy outcome.

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

#328

Post by gsibble » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:42 PM UTC

moistrobot wrote: post #307

nooyurrsdey wrote: post #282

Emphasis mine: > The case against the EPA was brought by West Virginia on behalf of 18 other mostly Republican-led states and some of the nation's largest coal companies. > > They were challenging whether the agency has the power to regulate planet-warming emissions for state-wide power sectors or just individual power plants. > > These 19 states were worried their power sectors would be regulated and they would be f…

if that's your goal, then we should be investing in nuclear energy and putting more pressure on countries like China and India

Agreed. China and India put out significantly more and dirtier pollution than the US and nuclear is the only realistic pathway forward for base emissions-free power.

Furthermore, this was the right decision. You can't just have the executive branch make up law. If Congress wants this, they can pass a law. That's how the US works.

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

#329

Post by coredog64 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:42 PM UTC

boringg wrote: post #266

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.

The way in which judges are brought to the bench in America and subsequently to SCOTUS is political. While it isn't Congress it isn't as independent as many people previously portrayed it.

I wonder if there’s a change within living memory that has caused that cough Bork cough

Snark aside, there’s a reasonable case to be made that Congress has been increasingly treating the judiciary as a super-legislature. Far easier to avoid the work of compromise etc. when you can punt it to the USSC. Whether that’s pure laziness or something structural based on a reduction of overall party power is up for discussion.

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

#330

Post by thepasswordis » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:42 PM UTC

nooyurrsdey wrote: post #282

Emphasis mine: > The case against the EPA was brought by West Virginia on behalf of 18 other mostly Republican-led states and some of the nation's largest coal companies. > > They were challenging whether the agency has the power to regulate planet-warming emissions for state-wide power sectors or just individual power plants. > > These 19 states were worried their power sectors would be regulated and they would be f…

Then tell the EPA to start lobbying the NRC to allow new nuclear plants and start allowing innovation in the space.

The EPA is not a legislative body. If you want to make it illegal to run a coal plant because you feel like it’s your duty to force some pain on the citizenry for what you perceive as a higher calling: pass a law.