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

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

#331

Post by unsui » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:42 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…

> Congress can fix everything that’s happened in the last few weeks via proper laws.

Can it?

In principle, sure, anything can happen.

In practice, given how it's not possible to pass any legislation without a filibuster-proof majority?

As others have commented in this and related threads, this is a win for industry precisely because congress CAN'T do anything in practice, given the reakpolitk of how congress actually "works" today.

I wish folks would stop saying "well, it should just go back to the spec, problem solved". This isn't code. This is the convoluted and complex world of political reality, where, unfortunately, might does often mean right. And more often than not, addressing the root cause isn't even possible, much less practical.

If anything, it's the current supreme court that is taking a binary view of legal interpretation and have "fixed the glitch". Glitches which in reality are patches which have been added organically over time to address changes to the underlying OS, new and unheard of use cases, changing specs and requirements, etc.

Unfortunately, a full rewrite often requires systemic overhall and reboot (something I would hope people are averse to doing in practice)

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

#332

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

xxpor wrote: post #250

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…

You have to know the actual motivation: The point is to limit the administrative state and move power to congress (as you said), because federal rule making is relatively open, and the administration has experts. If it moves to congress, they'll just take the legislation lobbyists hand them and pass it, because they don't have the expertise to actually write technical regulations. This is a win for industry.

Yes, this is a win for republican democracy, and a loss for "governance by experts."

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

#333

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

CWuestefeld wrote: post #303

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.

Recent history shows us many examples of SCOTUS saying "the Constitution doesn't let you do this", and people being up in arms crying "but the thing you just struck down is necessary". Folks: it's not within the Court's authority to decide what is a good idea and what is a bad idea. Their sole job is to interpret laws through the lens of the Constitution. The justices may well agree with your wishes of what Congress…

> But even if you believe that a given law is good - that women should have an inalienable right to an abortion, or that there should be tight controls on who can carry a weapon, or whatever - you've got to recognize that sometimes the Constitution does not give the government the power to make that happen.

It does, though, via the Ninth Amendment, which explicitly notes that the Constitution is not an exhaustive listing of the rights of American citizens.

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

#334

Post by asdajksah2123 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:42 PM UTC

PathOfEclipse wrote: post #301

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

The Major Questions doctrine is an invention of the Roberts court that no court before has even considered.

So yeah, they made up new rules, and yes, you're right, that the rules they made up to achieve a certain goal indicate that those goals are indeed correct.

Edit: The unsaid part of the "Major Questions" doctrine is that what it basically means is that the only decision maker in the US government is the Supreme Court.

This Supreme Court has chosen to parse Congress's bills text both strictly and loosely depending on whether it achieved their political priors. Further, they've alternatively decided to use, and disallow the usage of public statements by Congress members and/or the President for the same reason.

This is little more than a dismantling of the US govt.

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

#335

Post by jimkleiber » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:43 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…

I'd argue that one of the main drivers of climate change is this precise behavior: trying to alter the environment to be favorable towards the thing that I own.

I see it on a micro level of people trying to kill insects that get into their gardens or moles that ruin their lawns, and a more macro level of my state/country has coal underneath it and therefore we shall fight to continue to use coal or even my state/country doesn't have a lot of arable land for agriculture because of permafrost or access to non-frozen ports for shipping so increasing global temperature may actually be good for us.

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

#336

Post by usrn » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:43 PM UTC

willis936 wrote: post #62

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 senate is affirmative action for rural areas. Why do we accept minority rule?

Because the alternative would be not having the rural areas continuing to be part of the nation. If you can't come to an agreement with us, that's fine, try to move the regulation out of the federal government and see if you'll have better luck at the state level with more like-minded people.

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

#337

Post by pclmulqdq » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:43 PM UTC

coldcode wrote: post #230

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…

Congress won't act, the Executive isn't permitted to do much even with what they were given by Congress, and the People are powerless to do anything unless 100% of them vote, which never happens, and even then may be overruled in many places. No future for any of us I guess.

It's still very much an open question as to whether congress is allowed to abdicate its power of rule making to the executive branch. The constitution seems to imply that the answer is "no," but the past interpretations of it say "yes." Chevron is a younger precedent than Roe.

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

#338

Post by bombcar » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:43 PM UTC

PathOfEclipse wrote: post #301

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

We have 50+ years of Congress delegating authority and blame to various other branches and groups without actually legislating it, which gives politicians perfect cover and someone else to blame.

If Congress wants to do something, they can pass the law to do so.

Ever since the "it's not a tax healthcare penalty" was upheld by the Court as "yes it is you idiots" it's been painfully clear that Congress wants no part in actually doing their job.

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

#339

Post by tablespoon » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:43 PM UTC

xxpor wrote: post #250

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…

You have to know the actual motivation: The point is to limit the administrative state and move power to congress (as you said), because federal rule making is relatively open, and the administration has experts. If it moves to congress, they'll just take the legislation lobbyists hand them and pass it, because they don't have the expertise to actually write technical regulations. This is a win for industry.

> The point is to limit the administrative state and move power to congress (as you said), because federal rule making is relatively open, and the administration has experts.

> If it moves to congress, they'll just take the legislation lobbyists hand them and pass it, because they don't have the expertise to actually write technical regulations.

Huh? Remember Ajit Pai? It hasn't been that long.

It's profoundly anti-democratic for major decisions to be made by unelected, unaccountable technocrats (with a comment period) than by actual elected representatives who can at least theoretically be held accountable through elections.

IMHO, the solution to this is probably just to pass a law that authorizes this regulation that simultaneously pays off the states who object so they feel it's an overall good deal for them (e.g. fund a nuclear plant and a bunch of new infrastructure for each of them).

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

#340

Post by shrimpx » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:43 PM UTC

lbotos wrote: post #259

coldcode wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress won't act, the Executive isn't permitted to do much even with what they were given by Congress, and the People are powerless to do anything unless 100% of them vote, which never happens, and even then may be overruled in many places. No future for any of us I guess.

> People are powerless to do anything unless 100% of them vote I'm not following this logic? Why do we need 100% of people to vote? I assume you mean to "oust ineffective elected officials" but I suspect that there are many people that don't vote because they are "happy" and don't feel at risk of their desired official being outed. But again, I might be off base. Hoping you can clarify more of what you meant.

Many people don’t vote because they’re skeptical that their vote can affect anything — either because they’re in a definite minority in their legislatures or they think elections are bought, in a “changing minds” sense.