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

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

#421

Post by falcolas » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

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.

Why, then, has no previous SC viewed its role in this way?

Courts have historically always considered the intent of law (constitution) in addition to the word of law (constitution). Why isn't this one?

It feels like this SC intends to use pedantry to hobble the federal government. But... why? Because they can?

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

#422

Post by ericmay » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #295

ericmay wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to caution other people who are feeling despondent and thinking of leaving that this is exactly what they want. They want you to give them your homes, your relationships, your friends, your resources, your job and everything you've cared about. So instead of being cynical and celebrating people who are abandoning ship, which I totally understand, we should instead spend time uniting people in opposition. Sta…

> I'd like to caution other people who are feeling despondent and thinking of leaving that this is exactly what they want. Could you clarify who "they" is in: > this is exactly what they want. ? And are you being a little hyperbolic (nothing wrong with that, we all do it especially when impassioned) or do you really think the supreme court (or whoever "they" is) are trying to cause an exodus of people they disagree w…

I intentionally left they up to interpretation here because I think the same logic applies to anyone who is potentially being forced from their home. This could apply to California w.r.t firearms, or perhaps San Francisco and their lethargic response to a public health crises, or perhaps Ohio where I live where Christian Communists are attempting to subvert the United States and the Constitution.

I've actually always felt this way about immigration and refugees as well. I certainly understand taking people in (from wherever, to wherever), but the big problem with that is once all the good people leave an area you have nothing but the bad people. It's sort of fragile on a global scale. What's the end goal? All "good" people go to a select few countries and then the rest of the world is run by bad people?

> And are you being a little hyperbolic (nothing wrong with that, we all do it especially when impassioned) or do you really think the supreme court (or whoever "they" is) are trying to cause an exodus of people they disagree with?

I don't think there's an active campaign just yet, but I do think that state legislatures are happy when this filtering process happens because it solidifies power. So far they have not undertaken active, visible campaigns, but I believe that it's coming and will come more aggressively from Christian Communists that have taken power in state legislatures. It's not something that Democratic Party leaders will say out loud but of course they're happy when so-called Republicans leave their jurisdiction as well.

> I'm not challenging/disagreeing with you

Please do! We can't get better if we don't explore and have discussions.

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

#423

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

openasocket wrote: post #147

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roe v Wade becomes codified, abortion becomes legal in all 50 states, immediately there is a lawsuit, they appeal to the supreme court, supreme court chooses to hear the case, supreme court repeals the codified Roe v. Wade. IANAL but how does codifying Roe v Wade change this?

The decision made by the Supreme Court was that abortion was not a constitutionally-protected right, I doubt they would hold that allowing abortion was somehow unconstitutional. If that's what they wanted they would have gone ahead and declared that in their recent ruling. Instead they explicitly stated this is a matter for the legislature to decide.

Ahhh gotcha. Subtle but important difference. I think that I agree then.

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

#424

Post by ZeroGravitas » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

rpearl wrote: post #395

nitsky wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The political will is fairly easy in terms of broad democratic support, but following the rules as they're currently set out, which gives small groups outsized power makes it hard.

I'm not sure confusing those two things is helpful though.

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

#425

Post by DantesKite » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

andrekandre wrote: post #264

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.

> instead of treating it like a second version of Congress. what do you mean specifically?

The Supreme Court does not create laws. Congress does. The Supreme Court interprets those laws, making sure they do not violate the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is like a compiler simply running the instructions it's been told. It doesn't have any input over what's written.

Historically, people have used the Supreme Court to create laws, circumventing the voting process and giving 9 people oligarch-like power. This is not ideal.

There's also the general expectation the Supreme Court should do what's "right" which again, isn't a relevant metric for judging whether something is constitutional. The Supreme Court at its best is an amoral, apolitical institution.

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

#426

Post by zeroonetwothree » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

yieldcrv wrote: post #217

peter422 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then it’s all very self-contradictory. How are people supposed to have faith in the court when it makes a decision, reaffirms it many times over nearly 50 years, then just changes its mind on a dime? The judicial branch has a responsibility to itself for self-consistent reasoning, which it has completely abandoned this term. The court is not supposed to change dramatically with every election, that’s what the leg…

It is rare for the Supreme Court to act as a second Congress. When it has, those are the cases that most likely get overruled. Additionally, old cases with poor and antiquated assumptions get overturned (not relevant here, just showing a consistency in what is and can be expected to be reviewed.) Opposing sides of that court have said the exact same thing about Roe v Wade. Ruth Bader Ginsberg even said "this is prett…

RBG argued that RvW was decided poorly but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a constitutional right to abortion. There are other sources that could be used for the right than SDP.

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

#427

Post by KingOfCoders » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

mark_l_watson wrote: post #268

itslennysfault wrote: post #7

These guys are on a roll. Yesterday was giving states legal rights over indigenous nations. Today this. I was already planning to expat soon, but this all makes me want to try to hurry that timeline. Sorry to those of you that are stuck in this hellscape.

While I think that I understand your feelings, here is something to consider: Yuval Noah Harari (historian who has written some great books for understanding the world) recently said that if countries like the USA can solve the partisanship problems we have then there is no limit to where our society and civilization can go. This seems well worth working hard for. My personal approach is to be very hard on family mem…

As an European, please don't put me in a basket with the USA. Thanks.

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

#428

Post by nharada » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:55 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?

For many Americans the enemy IS Americans. It's worth getting bruised up as long as the other guy is hurt more.

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

#429

Post by Sporktacular » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

Bastards. This will neuter the US administration's ability to form international treaties and create pressure abroad, in addition to domestically. An environment increasingly unable to support life itself, but let's all take comfort knowing that this may lead to 4% of the planet having more deliberately worded laws.

As Chomsky said, the US Republican party is the most dangerous organisation in history. Congress has been captured and they won't undo this.

This might become one the most significant stories we'll read in our lifetimes.

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

#430

Post by bmelton » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

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…

For more information on the topic, you can look towards previous decisions creating the modern statutory interpretations (that have been pretty much declining in favor since their inception)

The two main cases that framed how much (or little) _deference_ the courts should lend in matters of dispute broadly derive from Chevron v NRDC[1] and Auer v Robbins[2]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natura....

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auer_v._Robbins