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

571–580 of 1001 posts

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

#571

Post by exabrial »

cryptonector wrote: post #297
exabrial wrote: post #205

I agree with "congress cannot delegate it's powers" to a certain extent. Negative example: The BATF has a splendid history of literally doing nothing except putting it's critics behind bars, while solving 0 actual crime and preventing any sort of mass tradgedies. Positive example: The FAA has done an incredible job making air-travel safer than car travel. I have a feeling that a lot of the higher-ups are former engin…

> Positive example: The FAA has done an incredible job making air-travel safer than car travel. I have a feeling that a lot of the higher-ups are former engineers and have been able to put politics and red/blue crap aside for a common mission. 737MAX enters the chat

Definitely a failure. How the "the stabilizer trim depends on exactly one input device" was a huge oversight.

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

#572

Post by toomuchtodo »

jimkleiber wrote: post #532
bumby wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is it. Values lead to attitudes when they are directed at an object. Beliefs and attitudes are emotionally biased and largely inform behavior. Unfortunately, beliefs don't have to be correct or even coherent with other beliefs to be strongly held. A person may value a coal mine for a variety of reasons that are very emotionally hinged: economic, familial, etc. To change behavior values and attitudes have to chan…

Change can suck. It can also be great. I think our tendency towards loss aversion makes us focus on how much it can suck. Even if my future might be better, it will be different, and I can want to not lose the thing to which I currently feel attached. > That's exceptionally difficult when the competing values, like climate, are more abstract than the ones currently held. I worry that humans are not psychologically eq…

> I wonder if reframing our identity could help.

This requires a level of emotional adjustment and self awareness lacking in many people.

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

#573

Post by brewdad »

briandear wrote: post #543
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 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.

The problem is that pollution easily becomes someone else's problem. If Wisconsin decides that Lake Michigan should be it's dumping ground, what recourse is there for Illinois, Indiana, or Michigan if there can be no federal oversight? Inter-state war is not really something I look forward to.

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

#574

Post by kemayo »

nitsky wrote: post #515
yladiz wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I do find it amusing (-ly hypocritical) that the big exception to this conservative position is the role of the Supreme Court itself. The entire concept of "judicial review" which is being employed here to allow the justices to strike down laws which they feel are outside the constitution is, famously, not a thing explicitly described in the constitution. Rather it's the very height of "well, it kinda implies we can do that".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

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

#575

Post by DiggyJohnson »

res0nat0r wrote: post #540
Arubis wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The entire point was to kick this to Congress, which they know can't pass anything, thus achieving their entire goal of allowing companies to pollute and do whatever they want to make an additional buck.

I see it more as a fundamental perspective that we need to give Congress a kick, which is might be excruciatingly ineffective right now, but we cannot continue with the expectation that our Federal legislature is too incompetent or disincentivized to do their jobs.

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

#576

Post by raverbashing »

kens wrote: post #541
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.

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 campaig…

Amendments to the constitution need adults in congress and the senate, not what we have today

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

#577

Post by meatsauce »

fooey wrote: post #380
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.

Congress doesn't remotely have the bandwidth to explicitly write out and decide all the little rules it takes to regulate the country, even if they had a clue what they were doing in each case It's pretty clearly designed to dismantle the federal regulatory apparatus

Congress has plenty of time and money. They are too busy jockeying for votes to do anything. The problem with congress is that they are too focused on winning elections instead of doing the GD job. I view this as yet another reason why we need strict term limits for members of congress. There are too many leeches.

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

#578

Post by enragedcacti »

zionic wrote: post #317
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…

Well the fix here is for Congress to pass a specific law empowering the EPA with explicit authority. If something like that can't make it through congress then it isn't democratic, and the task then becomes one of convincing the other side. I've the had the anti-coal conversation with plenty of conservatives and they were all open to my point of view. Ultimately this court's decision is a win for democracy, even if i…

> Ultimately this court's decision is a win for democracy

We've now learned that the supreme court will take up a case concerning the "Independent legislature theory" which, if affirmed, would allow state legislatures to unilaterally overrule their constituent's votes in both state and federal elections.

I can't wait to see the majority maintain its staunch pro-democracy stance that it takes in this case in the terms to come.

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

#579

Post by jayd16 »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #529
jayd16 wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Being forced to carry to term is a different circumstance. As you say yourself, the text limits the ruling to abortion which even today's court has ruled as a unique circumstance. Women should have this right and not the states. I truly believe that, but my opinions are also a distraction...

The justices lied to congress and were always going to overturn Roe. There's no higher judicial ground here.

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

#580

Post by cryptonector »

nostromo wrote: post #499
cryptonector wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true in this case. It's not true in Bruen or Dobbs.

No, Dobbs returns the power to legislate abortion to the congress. You are correct however on Bruen limiting the power of congress and the states.

> No, Dobbs returns the power to legislate abortion to the congress.

It does? I thought it left it to the states.

Post reply on HN