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

541–550 of 1001 posts

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

#541

Post by kens »

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.

The last amendment to the constitution was in 1992, so amendments aren't impossible. The story behind the 27th amendment is pretty amusing. An undergrad student wrote a paper saying that the proposed amendment was still live and could be ratified even though it had been proposed in 1789 and not passed, but got a C grade on the paper since his TA disagreed. Annoyed by this, the student started a letter-writing campaign which eventually succeeded in getting the constitutional amendment passed. Years later, his grade was changed to an A to recognize that he had been right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_th...

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

#542

Post by SllX »

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…

Yes. The US Fed Govt was never intended to have unlimited and arbitrary power, but POTUS candidates make big promises they don’t really have the power to deliver and try anyway. Right now it still has power very very close to that because even once a mook is elected and finds out he can’t really say, run the economy, he’ll still end up expanding the power of his branch of government falling short of the goal.

The path forward is clear for every single political ideology working within the legal Constitutional framework of the United States: get popular support, build a political coalition and then pass laws. Anything that tries to take shortcuts around that process deserves the axe.

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

#543

Post by briandear »

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 isn’t hobbling the federal government. It’s strengthening it by giving powers to Congress and the states where it belongs. It’s hobbling the executive branch to prevent them from ignoring the will of the people via Congress.

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

#544

Post by abigail95 »

xpe wrote: post #353
PathOfEclipse wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I see that you haven't let facts get in the way of a good theory. I don't think you've read the dissenting arguments yet. The core of this case is how do you interpret legislative text. The current Court is taking a radically strict view of legislation. They act like they are only reading the words. But in fact everyone has to interpret written words somehow. The question is what context do you use when you interpret…

Let's go one meta level up.

It's not like they cornered the decision into their own branch of government like they did with abortion (before Dobbs).

If there's disagreement on how a text should be interpreted I don't care whether a conservative court produces a different opinion to a liberal one.

I care whether congress still retains the ultimate authority in the matter, and in this case it does.

If congress thinks the court is wrong, it can say so.

However I think you'll find that just as there is disagreement within the court as to what this text actually means - there is just as much if not more disagreement in congress.

If congress itself is in disagreement - I think being radically strict is a good way to go.

I think it's healthy for judicial review and separations of powers for legislative interpetation to be kicked back to congress if there's any disagreement.

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

#545

Post by jrochkind1 »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #91
jrochkind1 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it though?

They are the final say on legal interpretation. Outcomes are for legislators to worry about.

It seems to me like they are considering outcomes. I'm not sure how we know for sure if they are or not, we don't know what's in their heads. But this court appears to many like they've got some outcomes in mind and are fitting the law to them.

And, I mean, Trump literally said that he could guarantee he was going to appoint justices that would overturn Roe, and then they did, as he guaranteed. That's an outcome, right?

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

#546

Post by vdnkh »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #303
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.

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…

You're ignoring the fact that there are several philosophies behind constitutional interpretation, and that the dominant philosophy which you list here ("sole job is to interpret laws through the lens of the Constitution"), also called Originalism, is a recent creation by Scalia.

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

#547

Post by InitialLastName »

codefreeordie wrote: post #472
toomuchtodo wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What the US has is (intentionally and explicitly) not a democracy. It has a wide array of structures intended to undermine the will of the majority.

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

#548

Post by gwbrooks »

JohnGB wrote: post #513
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.

Term limits are possible with a congressional vote; an impeachment process already exists, and the only time it was invoked against a Justice was 1804.

Don't mistake politicians' unwillingness to do something for an inability to do it.

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

#549

Post by mullingitover »

InTheArena wrote: post #318
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.

Government works off of law, not merely intentions. Intentions can change. Laws are documented. otherwise what’s the keep of random police officer from deciding that they have the ability to regulate the applications on my phone? After all, they’re just keeping me safe.

Legislation often deliberately leaves interpretation of statutes to the agencies implementing the laws. The legislation can just say "The parks department shall keep the park safe and well-maintained," without specifying what 'safe' means, or how often they collect the trash.

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

#550

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

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

This is the entire purpose of SCOTUS. They are not supposed to wade into politics. It is the same beef I have with Powell and his giving in to political demands. There is a reason you have the power and independence you do. It is not to please everyone.

I get that people will disagree, but ends do not justify the means.

Post reply on HN