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

511–520 of 1001 posts

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

#511

Post by falcolas »

bmelton wrote: post #462
falcolas wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The intent of the EPA is to regulate things that negatively impact the environment. To use your analogies, the EPA can by the word of law regulate John, and by the intent of law should be able to regulate BSA and Janet if they are operating in ways that negatively impact the environment.

If you limit an entity to only ever operate by the word and not the intent of law, then it's trivial for malicious (more accurately greedy) actors to skirt regulation, because the government will never be able to keep up with the exploitation of loopholes.

Kind of like how the IRS can tax bitcoins, despite cryptocurrencies not being explicitly written into the constitution or tax laws.

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

#512

Post by lotsofpulp »

colinmhayes wrote: post #397
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.

> let’s amend it! Lol good luck with that. Zero chance 3/4 of the states agree on literally anything. The culture wars are in full swing, owning the other side is more important than being effective.

How is it culture wars when one side does not want to regulate pollution?

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

#513

Post by JohnGB »

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'm just dumbfounded by the fact that the US Supreme Court has no term limits, age limits, or reasonable impeachment mechanism for justices that have unethical behaviour or outright lie on their job interview.

The USA is the most "at will employment" country in the world until it comes to the most critical functions of a government. It's absolutely crazy to me.

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

#514

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

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.

This right here. Taking a single US Govt elective was an eye opening experience for me.

People also need to try and understand that not every issue is a federal issue. There are also 50 state governments.

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

#515

Post by nitsky »

yladiz wrote: post #467
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.

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.

Yes, it's ambiguous and there are no good answers. Conservative justices say "unless the Constitution says it plainly, it's a no". Liberal justices say, "even if the Constitution doesn't say it plainly, they kinda imply it, so it's a yes".

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

#516

Post by colinmhayes »

nitsky wrote: post #500
colinmhayes wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> let’s amend it! Lol good luck with that. Zero chance 3/4 of the states agree on literally anything. The culture wars are in full swing, owning the other side is more important than being effective.

Alternatively, a simple majority in Congress could enact the regulations that were deemed not enforceable by the EPA alone. If a majority in Congress won't authorize it, should they be enacted? I guess it depends on your level of commitment to democracy as an ideal.

A majority in congress isn’t enough to pass regulatory laws. You need 60 votes unless you’ve got 50 willing to overturn the filibuster.

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

#517

Post by Supermancho »

nostromo wrote: post #450
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 regula…

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

> This is an absurd take.

Indeed, OP overstated the reality. If the SC rules all day every day to reduce federal power, it would never be able to keep up with Federal power expansion.

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

#518

Post by mc32 »

rlewkov wrote: post #415
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…

An attorney friend of mine summarized it by saying that the Supreme Court said it's OK for the EPA to dictate particular emission levels for power plants but not OK to require a plant to change it's method of power generation.

Wow... if this is the actual impact, that seems... fair. Yeah, you can regulate pollution levels but not go a step further and regulate the inputs that create pollution, unless that power is vested in you by Congress.

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

#519

Post by elsonrodriguez »

PathOfEclipse wrote: post #301
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

> The major questions doctrine works in much the same way to protect the Constitution’s separation of powers. ... It is vital because the framers believed that a republic—a thing of the people—would be more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable “ministers.”

Congress will never have the bandwidth or speed to tackle every problem via legislation. Delegating areas to expert "ministers" is the only way to have a functional government in today's complex world.

This seems like just another reframing of "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge".

Post reply on HN