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

51–60 of 1001 posts

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

#51

Post by xpe »

cdot2 wrote: post #37
bpodgursky wrote: post #30

I guess it's time for congress to actually pass laws (first abortion, and now greenhouse gasses). Going to be a lot of anger about the results this court season, but I honestly think it's going to be healthier for democracy overall if congress stop leaning on the courts and bureaucracy to make critical regulations.

The supreme court ruled that abortion is a state issue. Any law passed by congress would be struck down by the same ruling.

On what basis is this claim plausible?

In my understanding -- and I've read good chunks of the leaked Dobbs opinion -- the above claim is not true. The Dobbs decision's reasoning is largely based on a lack of clear federal legislation saying that abortion is legal.

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

#52

Post by jrochkind1 »

brodouevencode wrote: post #26
biggieshellz wrote: post #6

Major questions doctrine. They ruled that the current law does not empower EPA to require producers to shift generation to different methods (e.g. natural gas, renewables), and that if Congress had meant for the law to do that, they would have written it explicitly. Congress can still pass a law empowering EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

This is as much a blow to chevron deference than anything. This is a good thing.

Why do you see a blow to the chevron deference doctrine as a good thing?

I'd say that the doctrine properly tries to keep the supreme court, the least democratically responsible branch of US federal government, from being the most powerful of the three branches of government.

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

#53

Post by pigtailgirl »

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.

-- America began the process of un-uniting quite some time ago - it's unsurprising that the supreme court is reflecting that - curious what Americans here think about this? - much of the country is trending towards "live in the state that you're comfortable in" - seems somewhat reasonable? --

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

#54

Post by khuey »

brodouevencode wrote: post #26
biggieshellz wrote: post #6

Major questions doctrine. They ruled that the current law does not empower EPA to require producers to shift generation to different methods (e.g. natural gas, renewables), and that if Congress had meant for the law to do that, they would have written it explicitly. Congress can still pass a law empowering EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

This is as much a blow to chevron deference than anything. This is a good thing.

I haven't read the opinion in detail but it doesn't appear they touched Chevron, merely ruling this particular case falls under the preexisting major questions doctrine/exception to Chevron.

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

#55

Post by [deleted] »

gumby wrote: post #24

What’s interesting about this ruling (if you listened to the oral arguments and read the ruling) is that it appears to undercut the ability for any executive agency to make a rule, under them claim that congress cannot delegate its powers. So the FAA can’t determine and then require that aircraft have transponders. Congress has to do this. If they continue down this path it will be chaos.

[deleted]

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

#56

Post by b112 »

cdot2 wrote: post #37
bpodgursky wrote: post #30

I guess it's time for congress to actually pass laws (first abortion, and now greenhouse gasses). Going to be a lot of anger about the results this court season, but I honestly think it's going to be healthier for democracy overall if congress stop leaning on the courts and bureaucracy to make critical regulations.

The supreme court ruled that abortion is a state issue. Any law passed by congress would be struck down by the same ruling.

I upvoted, because I heard the same, and downvoting because of reality (no longer the fed's jurisdiction) is not fair.

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

#57

Post by _Microft »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #45

Great, so now we're reliant on congress to get something done. The same congress that's sat on its hands for the past 30 years and has been shown to be completely incapable of addressing the issue. This is a massive blow to the US being able to reach emissions targets. Every day we're one step closer to the 'business as usual' path that leaves the world 3-4c hotter. That's a catastrophic scenario.

> This is a massive blow to the US being able to reach emissions targets.

I think this is the actual goal. I don't know if they are aware that it does not make a difference climate-wise what they believe (or not).

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

#58

Post by Victerius »

xthrowawayxx wrote: post #29
jeffbee wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, but that would require Congress to actually do something, which hasn't happened in the last 18 months so we shouldn't expect it to start. Congress could have mooted this case with ordinary statutory procedures at any point, but did not.

I think a good thing that laws can't pass without sufficient consensus. If you can bypass consensus for the greater good then so can the other side.

The rise of China is testing and will continue to test this assumption. The Chinese government does not require consensus. It can build 40,000 kilometers of high speed rail in just a few years. It can pull hundreds of millions from poverty. It can shut down entire companies and industries overnight (e.g. private school tutoring), jail corrupt corporate executives, and in general coerce compliance to any law.

Do you know how many school teachers in China must buy supplies for their students with their own money? Zero.

Do you know how many Chinese ambassadorships are left vacant because of political bickering? Zero.

I am not a shill for the Chinese Communist Party, Xi Jinping, or the ideology of the Chinese political system, but I increasingly am a shill for the ruthless efficiency of the Chinese government.

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

#59

Post by jeffbee »

karaterobot wrote: post #23
jeffbee wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, but that would require Congress to actually do something, which hasn't happened in the last 18 months so we shouldn't expect it to start. Congress could have mooted this case with ordinary statutory procedures at any point, but did not.

But they probably should, and I hope this will get them to do it.

Impossible because their 50th guy in the Senate is a W. Virginia coal mining millionaire. He's all but literally the appellant in this case.

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

#60

Post by jrochkind1 »

hnrodey wrote: post #28
qalmakka wrote: post #14

The fact that people can't see that the conservatives are basically advocating worldwide for short term economic growth in exchange for basically our future is appalling to me. I am afraid we will see an immense amount of instability, increased poverty, mass migrations and authoritarian regimes rising up due to the fact that we couldn't manage to convince people that those parties do not care about them. In a previou…

The Supreme Court is focused on laws, not outcomes - as it should be.

Is it though?
Post reply on HN