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

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

#361

Post by jayd16 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:45 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.

What is the argument here? You want us to use law theory from before the industrial revolution or something?

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

#362

Post by hackerlight » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:46 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

Nuclear and solar and wind and hydro.

But that whole business of singling out India and China is BS. If China was split up into 10 smaller countries that together emitted the same amount in aggregate, those 10 smaller countries would fly under the radar. It's only because China happens to be a single country that people point the finger. Per-capita emissions is the thing to be focusing on.

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

#363

Post by lolinder » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:46 PM UTC

colinmhayes wrote: post #299

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…

Congress giving the EPA which is staffed by domain experts the ability to decide how much pollution is acceptable is a good thing actually. Why should congressmen be expected to figure that out?

And the court didn't rule that Congress can't do that, the court ruled that Congress didn't do that. Congress can absolutely go write a law giving the EPA that authority, and they should. But if that's not what the law says, then that's not what the EPA can do.

We can't be opposed to police creatively interpreting laws to target minorities and be okay with the EPA creatively interpreting laws to target fossil fuel companies. Just because the latter is in the service of a good cause doesn't make it legal. The ends do not justify the means--down that way lies peril.

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

#364

Post by mberning » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:46 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.

Absolutely correct. There is a process for writing laws. There is a process for amending the constitution. But instead of building a broad coalition to go and do these things they would rather roll the dice with the judiciary. And when they lose try to change the judiciary. Completely wrong headed. We need to get our legislature working. We also need people to realize that living in a democracy means that you don’t always get your way.

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

#365

Post by cryptonector » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:46 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.

Make the court large enough and it can be our version of the House of Lords, and a third house of Congress.

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

#366

Post by andrekandre » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:47 PM UTC

system2 wrote: post #323

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?

  > By hurting the country, who is benefiting?

who do you think it is?

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

#367

Post by noSyncCloud » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:47 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.

>very left biased BBC

Truly hilarious. You should do a NewsMax comedy special

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

#368

Post by xpe » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:47 PM UTC

zugi wrote: post #354

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.

> Congress won't act Under a legal constitutional system, when Congress "won't act", the laws stay the same as they were. The Executive branch taking unilateral action beyond its authority because the Legislative branch "won't act" scares me even more, for the long-term health of our democracy, than laws staying the same as they are now for a bit longer.

I see you've fixated on an obvious truth but missed out on the actual chess game.

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

#369

Post by CWuestefeld » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:47 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.

As far as I can tell, the nonsense with Court appointments began back in the 80s, with the campaign against Reagan's nominee Robert Bork. Since then there's been a gradually ramping escalation of hostility from both sides. The GOP had to pay back the DEMs for the Bork thing, the DEMs try to smear Thomas, vetting of nominees is held up, then entirely withheld until the President leaves office, and so forth.

The politicization of the Court is a completely bipartisan affair going back 4 decades at least.

We might even say it goes back 8 decades, to FDR's threats to pack the court (see "a switch in time saves nine").

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

#370

Post by politician » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:47 PM UTC

thepasswordis wrote: post #330

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.

100%. We need to stop treating the judiciary as if it were royalty, and instead operate the government using the established rules for change.

That means forcing Congress to accept its role and do its job instead of being a place where the members spend most of their time fundraising and trying to keep their seats.