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

581–590 of 1001 posts

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

#581

Post by nostromo »

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?

> We know Congress is too deadlocked to be effective.

This just isn't true. Congress continues to pass thousands of laws a year, in line with their historical trends.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics

Congress is only too deadlocked to be effective on issues that the American people are divided on. And that's basically the point of democracy.

I'm sorry to say that if you want a different set of laws, then you'll need to do the hard work of talking to other voters and convincing them you're right.

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

#582

Post by stefan_ »

cloverich wrote: post #473
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.

That's one of those things that is technically true but sweeps a lot of the practicalities under the rug. The constitution was not designed to be changed, it was designed to be VERY DIFFICULT to change. That has important implications when the court suddenly changes or repeals numerous rulings about it all at once. It will take years or decades to adapt.

The very constitution that all but guarantees a 50.1/49.9 split in just about every election.

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

#583

Post by zarzavat »

briandear wrote: post #526
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?

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 th…

There is a difference between a system working as intended, and a system working well. Given that the US constitution is now 230+ years old, we are seeing a huge divergence between the two.

The deadlock may be intentional, but it cannot be said that this is a desirable mode of operation when comparing to other countries that have much more effective governance and healthier societies.

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

#584

Post by electrondood »

xxpor wrote: post #250
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…

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.

> This is a win for industry.

I would frame it more as a loss for the planet, at a time when we're facing the greatest existential threat in all of history.

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

#585

Post by lolinder »

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.

This tendency of people to attribute the worst possible motives to their political opponents is tiring.

I live in a deeply conservative state, but I spend most of my online time on HN. This puts me in the middle of two vastly different cultures with vastly different sets of values. I have listened to both sides explain their sincerely held views. I have listened to both sides talk about the other side.

Each group will tell me "but those other guys are evil and only want to ____!" Each group then explains their own views, and you know what? Each group's views are rational. Each group's views are compassionate. Both groups really believe that they want what's best for the world, and neither group has thought through their ideas better than the other. Both have severe flaws in their reasoning, but both also really care.

In a word: both groups are human.

I think it would do us all good to assume that most people are acting out of sincerely held beliefs, and that most people really do want to do good. I know there are exceptions, but the world would be a better place if we didn't treat those exceptions as though they were the rule.

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

#586

Post by Workaccount2 »

hunglee2 wrote: post #210

owning the supreme court was the republicans trump card, the Presidency is only a pit stop toward the true goal. Got it for a life time now don't they? Got to hand it to them, smart long term planning

To think there are people to who stayed home in Nov' 16 because they were salty that Bernie didn't get the nomination.

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

#587

Post by alex_sf »

namdnay wrote: post #539
kbuchanan wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great example of how on an individual level commentators want to bend democratic processes to achieve their own goals, but, without fail, they get caught in a tangle of contradictions. What is the Supreme Court's mandate? To stop climate change? To feel out the majority's opinion and make a legal path for it? This is why democracy is so hard: it consistently yields outcomes that are disappointing to a large…

> What is the Supreme Court's mandate? To stop climate change? Stopping climate change should be everyone’s mandate. When your house is on fire and a neighbor has a hose pipe, so you get into an argument with them because they’re not a fireman?

Stopping hackers should be everyone's mandate. When your network is under attack and the FBI have stingrays, do you get into an argument with them because they don't have warrants?

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

#588

Post by throw0101a »

rayiner wrote: post #332
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.

Yes, this is a win for republican democracy, and a loss for "governance by experts."

> Yes, this is a win for republican democracy […]

It is a win for the anti-government minority:

* https://www.vox.com/2018/9/12/17850980/democracy-tyranny-min...

* https://harpers.org/archive/2017/03/tyranny-of-the-minority/

* https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/guest-commentary/os-...

* https://www.politico.com/story/2009/03/the-tyranny-of-the-mi...

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

#589

Post by tablespoon »

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.

>> 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 problem is that a lot of people want to use amendments to force non-consensus policy preferences on the whole country. For many decades, it seems like Supreme Court decisions have frequently been serving as the constitutional amendments those people want in all but name.

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

#590

Post by maxwell »

rabuse wrote: post #235

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

In light of Bruen and this one, maybe.

But based on Egbert and Vega, there's now precedent for federal agents to perform warrantless raids, seizures, and arrests, without reading Miranda warnings, with no legal consequences.

Post reply on HN