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

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

#521

Post by shrimpx » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:10 PM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #320

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #199

So to recap: the SCOTUS has ruled that the agency established and authorized by Congress to regulate environmental protection does not have the authority to regulate environmental protection. Did I get that right?

Yes, and the dissent spells that out clearly. An excerpt from the dissent: > The majority says it is simply “not plausible” that Congress enabled EPA to regulate power plants’ emissions through generation shift- ing. Ante, at 31. But that is just what Congress did when it broadly authorized EPA in Section 111 to select the “best system of emission reduction” for power plants. §7411(a)(1). The “best system” full stop—…

These literalist justices are of the mind that if it wasn’t explicitly written, then it’s not allowed. Generalist/broad swath language is to be ignored. Only specific instruction is to be interpreted.

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

#522

Post by bcrosby95 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:10 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #319

ComputerGuru wrote: post #221

PDF of the ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf As usual, it’s more nuanced than the headline.

Nobody in the comments is saying that the Supreme Court is wrong in the sense that the logic doesn’t follow. Of course it’s nuanced and up to interpretation, that’s why most decisions are split — and usually split on “conservative (do what I say) and liberal (do what I mean). The reason people are mad is because the court is relitigating long settled cases which breaks the main principle of the court which is don’t b…

Most decisions are actually not split. It's just that the controversial ones get all the press. No one is gonna get fired up about 9-0 or 8-1 decisions.

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

#523

Post by zeroonetwothree » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:12 PM UTC

rabuse wrote: post #235

I hope they go after the unconstitutional agency known as the "ATF" next.

SC rules on cases that are appealed. They can’t “go after” anyone on their own.

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

#524

Post by Sporktacular » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:12 PM UTC

tablespoon wrote: post #339

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.

> 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. Huh? Remember Ajit Pai? It hasn't been that long. It's profoundly anti-d…

No post body was provided.

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

#525

Post by criddell » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:12 PM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #432

criddell wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fix the SCOTUS. I like the proposal to have term limits (long ones, maybe 20 years) and increase the number of justices so that every four years two of them are replaced by the sitting president.

The Constitution says "for life". Fixing that will require an amendment.

Sure. It's a document that was designed to evolve and we've done that 27 times already.

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

#526

Post by briandear » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:12 PM UTC

Arubis wrote: post #486

nostromo wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> All Congress needs to do… And therein lies the problem. We know Congress is too deadlocked to be effective. Does the Court pushing back on them have a shot at getting the legislative branch to do their jobs?

Deadlock is a feature not a bug. You want deadlock because one side or another pushing their agenda against the majority is the road to totalitarianism. If there is a deadlock, should one side of another simply dictate? Of course not.

If Trump ran the executive branch, would you want him pushing through via administrative fiat things that Congress doesn’t want? I certainly don’t want the EPA making policy — I want them doing what Congress explicitly tasks then to do. Same for other agencies. It’s the Major Questions doctrine.

Congress exists for a reason. The executive branch executes the will of the states and people as indicated by Congress. That’s the entire point of Congress.

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

#527

Post by vintermann » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:12 PM UTC

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.

You think that the court is principled? You think that will work?

A subsidiary of the "just world" hypothesis is what they call in Russia the "just tsar" theory. The theory that the final legal authority, the tsar, is reasonable. He just doesn't know what all his bloodsucking boyars and rampaging Cossacks are doing.

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

#528

Post by timeon » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:12 PM UTC

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.

> left biased BBC article

This reminds me how was Ben Shapiro burned by conservative guy from BBC. And Shapiro called him 'liberal'.

Anything that is not regressive is by default left/liberal for these people.

You have made God from your Constitution while in other countries it is an tool. You have just one more party than China and call your self beacon of democracy. Tunnel vision.

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

#529

Post by CWuestefeld » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:13 PM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #412

CWuestefeld wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recent history shows us many examples of SCOTUS saying "the Constitution doesn't let you do this", and people being up in arms crying "but the thing you just struck down is necessary". Folks: it's not within the Court's authority to decide what is a good idea and what is a bad idea. Their sole job is to interpret laws through the lens of the Constitution. The justices may well agree with your wishes of what Congress…

How can you think it's not blatant politics when they lied about their opinions in congressional hearings only to overturn Roe once they had power. How can you think that is in good faith? To argue, "oh whoops you didn't _do the work_ to obtain your RIGHTS " is also simply a distraction. The US is founded on the concept of unenumerated rights. Do not be fooled. We had those rights and now we don't thanks to this new…

Look at it the other way around: if the nominees are being questioned about what their opinions are on specific issues, the Congress has already turned it into a political match. The Congress ought to be trying to probe for their qualifications as a justice, and I don't think that one's opinion on self defense or abortion figure directly into that.

Further, I don't buy that you truly believed the argument behind Roe anyway. I don't know you personally, but it's a good bet that you don't support the philosophy that it described. What Roe said[1] was that a person can make whatever[2] treatment they individual decide (in consultation with their doctor) is most appropriate for their circumstances.

But I'm betting that you don't actually agree with this, as evidenced that you likely haven't pursued other violations of it with such vehemence. So I ask you:

1. Have you taken to the streets protesting when people, after consulting with their doctor, have been forbidden the right to use marijuana medicinally?

2. Do you oppose the authority of the FDA to determine what medications Americans should be allowed to use, such that we should be able to use a pharmaceutical even if the FDA says it's too dangerous, or not effective enough?

3. Have you even argued against the authority of the government to force individuals to take covid-19 vaccinations?

If you answer "no" to any of the above, then I assert that your claims to believe in the argument behind Roe is false.

[1] Believe it or not, I actually support the philosophy of bodily autonomy. But that doesn't change the fact that the actual argument behind Roe was a notably lousy one. This is precisely the point I was trying to make in my original comment: one's opinions about the goodness of something are independent of their judgment about the legality of legislation under the Constitution.

[2] Actually, Roe's text limits itself to just abortions, but it seems clear that such a principle ought to apply to all medical treatments in principle - that's why many of today's protests are framed more broadly as "bodily autonomy".

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

#530

Post by fassssst » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:13 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.

The whole system was designed so wealthy landowners could maintain max power while keeping people complacent. It’s as evident as ever.