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

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

#461

Post by Sporktacular » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:58 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.

"duty to force some pain on the citizenry"

You do know that coal power kills more people than any other power source right? That makes health care a hidden cost, paid by the citizenry, to subsidise an irresponsible energy industry.

Think much?

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

#462

Post by bmelton » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:59 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #421

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.

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?

It largely had been up until 1984, when Chevron v NRDC was decided in a way that yielded a _deference_ that previously didn't exist in determining the scope of executive branch delegation authority via statutory interpretation - e.g., "Can the agency I've tasked with regulating John also regulate the Boy Scouts of America, of which John is a member?" and "If a regulatory agency can regulate John, can it determine for itself that it may also regulate John's best friend Janet just by reinterpreting the statute for itself without input by the executive or congressional branches?"

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

#463

Post by cmurf » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:59 PM UTC

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…

Not everything.

It's abundantly clear from the Dobbs majority opinion they will not accept a Roe statue from Congress, that they would overturn it on 10th amendment grounds. It's not an express power Congress has, thus it's strictly up to states. Since they also stated in Dobbs they'd use rational basis scrutiny, the lowest scrutiny possible, when judging state laws on abortion restrictions, I expect they will accept state laws that:

* define moment of conception as murder

* fetus as citizen in fact, meaning out of state abortions are also subject to murder charges

* high burden of proof on women, low burden of proof for the state, that a miscarriage rather than abortion occurred

* hold abortion-is-legal states to article 4, section 1 "full faith and credit", i.e. civil fines and extradition for persons fleeing judgements in abortion-is-not-legal states

* hold companies paying for abortion procedures and travel as party to a crime

The Court is lost for a generation, short of expanding the Court. There is no chance 3/4 of the states will ratify a constitutional amendment on this issue. And there's a lot more litigation to come.

And should it come to the Court, I expect they will set aside Griswold, Lawrence, Obergefell using the same logic - it's not a federal power. How they could possible not reverse Loving, I'm not sure, except that likely no state is as yet backward enough to try and making interracial marriage illegal once again.

I think there is merit in the argument that we've been asking the Court to be expedient, while then not doing the dirty work of putting these rights in constitutional amendments. Instead we're kicking the can down the road, but then we are also avoiding a lot of public contention arguing about it - for good and probably not for good to some degree. But look at the polling. Most Americans now disapprove of the judiciary nearly as much as Congress. With all three branches of government at historic low approval, it is very damaging to representative democracy that this has happened, not least of which is that an unpopularly elected president put these three justices on the Court who lied under oath that these cases are "settled law", and yet just deeply unsettled one of them.

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

#464

Post by parrellel » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:59 PM UTC

jimmygrapes wrote: post #252

pupppet wrote: post #106

Everyone stating this is a good thing because it's not the Supreme Court's job to do xyz are conveniently ignoring the fact these decisions are being made due to tribalism, not out of some concern for rule of law.

The actual decisions do not reflect that at all, and they go into great depth to explain the reasoning, none of which seems remotely ideological (other than legal ideology which is orthogonal to political leaning).

Like the school prayer case from yesterday where Gorsuch was literally making things up in his opinion, so Sontomayer included photos of the offending action to show that Gorsuch was making things up in his opinion?

The legal trappings of the conservative positions have been explicitly merely legal trappings.

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

#465

Post by ALittleLight » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:59 PM UTC

pupppet wrote: post #106

Everyone stating this is a good thing because it's not the Supreme Court's job to do xyz are conveniently ignoring the fact these decisions are being made due to tribalism, not out of some concern for rule of law.

How do you know this? Do you disagree with the outcomes or agree with them? If you disagree with the outcomes then it may come across as calling people who disagree with you tribal because they reached the "wrong" conclusions.

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

#466

Post by tcmart14 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:59 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #421

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.

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?

Because we are now at the point where we can just make shit up as we go along and anyone who can string together 3 words has a coherent argument for whatever they want.

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

#467

Post by yladiz » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:59 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.

However, even if you read the Constitution and attempt to do apply what it "does say", you still need to interpret it, which is often ambiguous.

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

#468

Post by Drunk_Engineer » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:59 PM UTC

zionic wrote: post #317

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…

Well the fix here is for Congress to pass a specific law empowering the EPA with explicit authority. If something like that can't make it through congress then it isn't democratic, and the task then becomes one of convincing the other side. I've the had the anti-coal conversation with plenty of conservatives and they were all open to my point of view. Ultimately this court's decision is a win for democracy, even if i…

Congress already has the option of overriding/veto any EPA adopted regulation. It has never used that power to remove regulation of CO2. This is not a win for democracy -- quite the opposite.

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

#469

Post by InTheArena » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:59 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?

The police have decided that the best way to fight crime is to track my phone and every text message at every time. After all, they are the experts!

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

#470

Post by VoodooJuJu » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 3:59 PM UTC

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's about giving power back to the states, and in turn the people. So a state and its people would have the power to decide on something like abortion rather than a single centralized leviathan-authority.