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

471–480 of 1001 posts

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

#471

Post by azinman2 »

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 it’s a way to fit their world view. Don’t expect consistency, this will be done per topic.

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

#472

Post by codefreeordie »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #377
thepasswordis wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can’t pass a law, too many climate change deniers in political positions. We’ll have to find other mechanisms to force coal plants offline. Lots of tools available besides the EPA.

"can't pass a law because I can't get enough voters to want it"

Sounds like maybe you don't believe in democracy

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

#473

Post by cloverich »

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.

That's one of those things that is technically true but sweeps a lot of the practicalities under the rug. The constitution was not designed to be changed, it was designed to be VERY DIFFICULT to change. That has important implications when the court suddenly changes or repeals numerous rulings about it all at once. It will take years or decades to adapt.

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

#474

Post by jonny_eh »

kilroy123 wrote: post #418
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.

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.

There's two mechanisms to keep the constitution alive, amendments and rulings.

It's both normal and necessary for judges to consider the complexities and competing interests in cases to determine how the law should be applied. The constitution does not need to enumerate every single right for the court. See the 9th amendment, it specifically says that.

It's best to think of the constitution as a framework for how to think of our rights.

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

#475

Post by waffleiron »

gsibble wrote: post #371
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.

Highly disagree. All of the recent decisions make perfect legal sense, this coming from the son of a Constitutional attorney who has described to me the rulings, reasons behind them, precedents, etc.. And he's a pro-choice, anti-gun Democrat. He still agrees with the legal decisions. I read the rulings myself too and they make total sense given what I've learned over decades of listening to him.

I think the dissenting opinion on this one makes a lot of sense. Even so, making legal sense doesn't mean they are not biased, seeing as the court decides which cases to rule on, and which ones to ignore.

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

#476

Post by vintermann »

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.

The role of the court is whatever the hell it pleases. It is the court which gets the final word on what they should be.

They do write opinions, but they might as well not since they answer to no one. No one can hold them accountable for blatantly contradicting themselves.

They can very theoretically be impeached, but that's a 100% political process - it's equally (im)possible whether they're "fulfilling their role" or not.

It's not a very smart system. I'm hoping Americans start questioning some of those patriotic pieties they're taught in their civics classes as a result of the mask-dropping that's happened lately.

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

#477

Post by vel0city »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #265
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…

Reminder: decisions like Roe v. Wade (and many others in the era before this court) weren't passed by "the left" in a political sense. For example: five of the seven-justice majority in Roe were Republican appointees.

Roe v. Wade was decided in 1971. That's not too soon after the great realignment from the election of 1964. Some of those Republican appointments like Brennan and Stewart happened well before the realignment. And even then, the author of the opinion was written by Blackmun who was appointed by Nixon. Nixon, the guy who brought us the EPA and many other things the modern Republican party likes to hate. Meanwhile one of the dissents to Roe was written by White who was appointed by JFK.

The parties of 1971 were both very different compared to today. You can't assume that someone active in the party in 1956 (Brennan) holds the same values as what's talked about on OAN today.

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

#479

Post by timeon »

moistrobot wrote: post #307
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…

if that's your goal, then we should be investing in nuclear energy and putting more pressure on countries like China and India

Unfortunately most pro-nuclear talk I see is in form of excuse 'my way or highway'. Like the one you did. As bonus you are trying to shift focus to other actors (which true, are also relevant but still...)

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

#480

Post by pclmulqdq »

xpe wrote: post #390
pclmulqdq wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still very much an open question as to whether congress is allowed to abdicate its power of rule making to the executive branch. The constitution seems to imply that the answer is "no," but the past interpretations of it say "yes." Chevron is a younger precedent than Roe.

> It's still very much an open question as to whether congress is allowed to abdicate its power of rule making to the executive branch. The constitution seems to imply that the answer is "no," but the past interpretations of it say "yes." Chevron is a younger precedent than Roe. You say abdicate. Not true. Congress is obviously empowered to delegate. Please be specific. Who (written where?) thinks this is an open que…

Here is a discussion on Chevron and a neighboring ruling (Auer), from a favorable perspective, which outlines some of the challenges: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-cont...

This is also a common theme of many recent cases. Examples include: American Hospital Association v. Becerra, SEC vs Cochran, SEC vs Jarkesky, Gundy vs United States.

It is not clear that Congress can actually "delegate" the power to write laws.

Post reply on HN