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

391–400 of 1001 posts

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

#391

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

cloutchaser wrote: post #119
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

Due to things like the electoral college, gerrymandering, vote suppression tactics, and senate representation to name just few, the US is not very democratic. Nor can these be fixed under current conditions because of the above list.

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

#393

Post by KingOfCoders »

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.

If you want airspace to be regulated, pass a law (cancel the FAA). If you want frequencies to be regulated, pass a law (cancel the FCC). If you want individual food and drugs to be regulated, pass a law (cancel the FDA). If you want cars to be regulated, ...

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

#394

Post by usrn »

davidw wrote: post #242
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…

> This isn’t the end of the world though, Congress can fix everything that’s happened in the last few weeks via proper laws. Proper laws are no match for calvinball rulings.

This is very much the opposite of calvinaball. The rules are in the constitution and that hasn't changed in quite a while.

EDIT: RE: no right to poop(sic) in the constitution

It's a list of things the government may not do, not a list of things you may do. Try reading it, it's very short. I would imagine the court would rule a law against that would violate the right to life.

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

#395

Post by rpearl »

nitsky wrote: post #373
asdajksah2123 wrote: post #326

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 (altho…

> That may even be "constitutionally" correct... but it makes the US completely incapable of operating in the modern world. The Constitution was designed to be amended to adapt to a changing world. Let's amend it! However, it is the role of the Supreme Court to apply what the Constitution DOES say, not decide what it SHOULD say.

how exactly do you propose finding the political will necessary to amend it?

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

#397

Post by colinmhayes »

nitsky wrote: post #373
asdajksah2123 wrote: post #326

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 (altho…

> That may even be "constitutionally" correct... but it makes the US completely incapable of operating in the modern world. The Constitution was designed to be amended to adapt to a changing world. Let's amend it! However, it is the role of the Supreme Court to apply what the Constitution DOES say, not decide what it SHOULD say.

> let’s amend it!

Lol good luck with that. Zero chance 3/4 of the states agree on literally anything. The culture wars are in full swing, owning the other side is more important than being effective.

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

#398

Post by CWuestefeld »

ceejayoz wrote: post #333
CWuestefeld wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lis…

There's an argument to be made there, but it's most certainly NOT "explicit". The 9th does say that there are other rights, that's pretty much its whole point. But it absolutely does not "explicitly" mention abortion or anything else.

You also ignored my example of 2A, or the current controversy (for which I haven't yet read the argument, but I assume that the 10th Amendment plays into it in exactly the same way you're arguing for the 9th).

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

#399

Post by wistlo »

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…

By this reasoning, women voting and eliminating the 3/5 coefficient for certain people are on "shaky constitutional ground."

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

#400

Post by cryptonector »

nostromo wrote: post #309

The theme this session has been the court pushing lots of decisions back to congress, away from the executive, and away from the court itself. For all the consternation, these decisions are very mutable. Congress just needs to pass laws.

That's true in this case. It's not true in Bruen or Dobbs.
Post reply on HN