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

411–420 of 1001 posts

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

#411

Post by xxpor »

tablespoon wrote: post #339
xxpor wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-d…

Ajit Pai got kicked out when the administration changed! Exactly how it should be!

They're not unaccountable, the president can dismiss them. Just like Trump fired Janet Yellen, and SCOTUS already ruled the structure of CFPB where removal for cause was required is unconstitutional.

The idea congress is "democratic" is a huge joke. There's a reason why the House of Lords has essentially no power any more. Let alone the literal open corruption campaign finance is.

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

#412

Post by jayd16 »

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…

How can you think it's not blatant politics when they lied about their opinions in congressional hearings only to overturn Roe once they had power. How can you think that is in good faith?

To argue, "oh whoops you didn't _do the work_ to obtain your RIGHTS" is also simply a distraction. The US is founded on the concept of unenumerated rights. Do not be fooled. We had those rights and now we don't thanks to this new court.

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

#413

Post by unethical_ban »

The goal of this Supreme Court seems to be the dismantling of the past century of reading the Constitution. They are pushing hard to put the onus on Congress to pass explicit amendments to protect human rights, and to be more explicit in the power they grant the Executive. And they don't seem to care about religion being defacto intertwined with public education.

The United States was "the first modern democracy". But we're running on shoddy, unpatched OS that none of the maintainers feel like fixing, and the users can't change the maintainers due to the rules.

Ideally:

The Senate would be gone.

Either gerrymandering would be dismantled, or state elections for House would be multi-member elections. The House would scale with population.

Justices of the Supreme Court would have a term limit of say, 18 years.

Constitutional amendments would not require such a supermajority of state legislatures.

The Federal government would have a standard for voting audits and take a more active role in protecting voting rights, since the ability for the Constitution to be amended depends on the integrity of state elections as well as federal elections.

Frankly, I don't see a way out of the slow death spiral this country is in without significant upheaval.

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

#414

Post by seoaeu »

yieldcrv wrote: post #193
seoaeu wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Protester: "6 unelected officials can't decide what I can do!" > Supreme Court: "That's literally what we just said!" Bullshit. The court was perfectly happy telling millions of people they had no right to an abortion. They’re just a bunch of partisan hacks

that is a very popular perspective, which reinforces exactly what I said about it being too complicated for people. Congress outsourced the decision to the judicial branch, the judicial branch said its for the elected representatives, aka Congress, to decide. Barring any supremacy from Congress, state laws and the consensus mechanisms of those states are the only laws available. Congress outsourced emissions decision…

Again I call bullshit. There’s no way in a million years these same clowns would apply the same logic to gun control. This is all just motivated reasoning because the court wants to advance a conservative agenda

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

#415

Post by rlewkov »

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…

An attorney friend of mine summarized it by saying that the Supreme Court said it's OK for the EPA to dictate particular emission levels for power plants but not OK to require a plant to change it's method of power generation.

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

#416

Post by im_down_w_otp »

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…

Alternatively, there's always the opportunity to reappropriate Andrew Jackson for the modern era and say, "John Roberts made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Were the country so inclined.

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

#417

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

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…

I think that we will adapt and Congress just needs to adjust to a hostile Supreme Court and legislate more. People need to vote.

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

#418

Post by kilroy123 »

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.

Agreed. Wasn't that the original intention? That it would be a living document that changes and grows as time goes on?

Sadly, it seems near impossible to get consensus to change it now.

Post reply on HN