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

441–450 of 1001 posts

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

#441

Post by 40acres »

rayiner wrote: post #322
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…

Nobody denies that "Congress deliberately leaves leeway in laws to give the executive branch flexibility." The whole point of this case is that Congress gave the EPA leeway to decide standards and scrubbing technologies for toxic pollutants, and the EPA stretched that leeway far beyond what Congress intended to address a completely different problem involving a non-toxic alleged pollutant.

The court has already ruled in Chevron v. NRDC that executive agencies have deference in interpretation of statues if Congress has not explicitly granted that power. The Clean Air act was passed in 1970 to ensure air quality, through science and the advancement of our understanding the EPA has identified CO2 as a toxic pollutant. I don't understand why we need an updated law by Congress when the EPA is much closer to the issue.

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

#442

Post by InTheArena »

thomascgalvin wrote: post #184
JohnHaugeland wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We managed for hundreds of years.

Mitch McConnell broke the Senate, and through that, the Judiciary.

This is the problem with partisanship.

Blockade of judges started in 2001, when Democrats declared Bush illigetimate, and decided that no judges would be selected. Republicans threatened the "nuclear option" (removing fillibusters). The "Gang of 14" in 2005 wrote ideological ground rules and approved a set number of judges to keep the nuclear option from being used.

Obama came to office, and the Democrats used the nuclear option - despite the gang of 14 framework, but then said that it doesn't apply to supreme court ballots. Republicans came in and decided that yes, it did apply.

We've been destroying our own government with crap like this for the last 20 years.

Partisanship is a hell of a drug.

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

#443

Post by bhupy »

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…

> it makes the US completely incapable of operating in the modern world.

A less pessimistic outcome is that it forces the US to operate more like the EU, which seems more than capable of operating in the modern world.

Whether that actually happens remains to be seen.

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

#444

Post by Aunche »

ericmay wrote: post #27
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.

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…

Couldn't agree with you more. Democracy literally means "people rule." As the rulers, you occasionally have to rule. It blows my mind that so many people act really angry about states that gerrymander or take away abortion rights, but can't even name a single state legislature. The little political motivation people have gets funneled into a few super-popular national issues regardless of their political feasibility, so Congresspeople are incentivized to virtue signal rather than get legislation though.

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

#445

Post by hotpotamus »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #417
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.

Yeah, they're ahead of you on that one. Already zapped the Voting Rights Act and ruled that gerrymandering is legal. They're pretty competent at setting up the doom loop for Democracy - that and cutting taxes for the wealthy.

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

#446

Post by bumby »

bombcar wrote: post #338
PathOfEclipse wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>We have 50+ years of Congress delegating authority and blame to various other branches

This became very apparent to me after pushed Congress to pass an Authorization of Military Force around ~2014. They balked, effectively continuing the trend of delegating their war-making abilities to the executive branch.

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

#447

Post by InTheArena »

thesiniot wrote: post #216
JohnHaugeland wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We managed for hundreds of years.

That was before the Senate hijacked the normal nomination process in 2016. The court has been an illegitimate and partisan body ever since Garland's seat was denied.

No, that process was broken in 2001 - and temporarily restated wit the gang of 14 - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14

It's a much bigger problem then just this.

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

#448

Post by gsibble »

pylon wrote: post #410
thepasswordis wrote: post #314

Good. I have to say that, as an anti-authoritarian, conservative advocate of individual liberty, this last week has been extremely inspiring. To those who are confused about how the system in the US works: the court has basically decreased their own power with some of these decisions. That’s the type of thing that should give everybody, regardless of affiliation, hope about the future.

Making it easier for states to ban abortion is good for individual liberty?

It also makes it easier for states to expand access to abortion, including expanding it up through the 3rd trimester. Just today, CA put a Constitutional amendment on the ballot in November to allow up to the final minute abortions.

That ruling gave power back to the people and state legislatures. It benefit blue states as much as red.

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

#449

Post by xxpor »

rayiner wrote: post #332
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.

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

If we had a parliamentary system, I would agree with you. But the actual on the ground reality is Congress does not represent the actual will of the people due to malaportionment.

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

#450

Post by nostromo »

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…

> this court will reduce the Federal government to a non-entity very soon

This is an absurd take. All Congress needs to do is clarify that they’d like the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. That’s it. The laws regarding pollution control, many of which date back to the 1950s and 1960s, we’re not written with global warming in mind. So the court is saying the EPA needs to get permission from elected officials to regulate carbon.

Post reply on HN