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

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

#611

Post by bhupy » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:39 PM UTC

xxpor wrote: post #449

rayiner wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If we had a parliamentary system, I would agree with you. But the actual on the ground reality is Congress does not represent the actual will of the people due to malaportionment.

The main implication here is that the policy making decision tree needs to change.

Whereas before it was:

Do we have the political will to enact this from sea to shining sea via Federal legislation? -> YES/NO -> Can we enact this from sea to shining sea via fiat through an existing administrative agency? -> YES/NO -> Can we enact this from sea to shining sea via the SCOTUS? -> YES/NO -> Can we enact this policy gradually via the States? -> YES/NO

Now it is:

Do we have the political will to enact this policy from sea to shining sea via Federal legislation? -> YES/NO -> Can we enact this policy gradually via the States? -> YES/NO

The States themselves don't have the "malapportionment" problem, and insofar as Congress does, it's because the system was always set up for change to occur from the bottom-up, not the top-down. The EU refers to this as subsidiarity [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_(European_Union)]. Congress is structured in exactly the same way as the EU, as well as other federations like Australia and Switzerland.

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

#612

Post by extheat » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:40 PM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #145

biggieshellz wrote: post #6

Major questions doctrine. They ruled that the current law does not empower EPA to require producers to shift generation to different methods (e.g. natural gas, renewables), and that if Congress had meant for the law to do that, they would have written it explicitly. Congress can still pass a law empowering EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Do y'all not consider how the EPA came into being in the first place? It exists because a previous congress did do something and delegated their authority for a very specific reason. Like it was a joint effort between Republicans and Democrats even. What this Supreme Court has decided to do is say that what they did doesn't matter, knowing that the current makeup in congress is in gridlock due to how modern day Repub…

Congress has to be explicit with what powers they delegate. They can’t just say “do whatever you want to fix this problem”. Neither does it say that in the law. It’s not the job of SCOTUS to give you the outcome you want. It’s to rule on what the law does say and is constitutionally acceptable.

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

#613

Post by waffleiron » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:40 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #306

Headlines about Supreme Court cases are almost uniformly misleading, because they suggest the Court is making decisions on policy issues rather than legal issues. The very first words of the opinion, on p. 2, make clear that the legal issue before the Court is very different: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf The Clean Air Act does not purport to give the EPA blanket regulatory authority ov…

> This case concerns whether the EPA can use its power to impose control technologies on power plants, to force the industry to use a particular mix of power generation sources (solar, gas, etc.).

Dissenting opinion quotes the following, which to me (and at least one supreme court judge) does not seem to limit this power:

> “the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the [EPA] Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.” §7411(a)(1).

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

#614

Post by drew-y » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:41 PM UTC

throw10920 wrote: post #435

voisin wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of those unelected bureaucrats are experts in their fields due to their ability to focus for entire careers.

Is Congress not capable of listening to those experts and then publicly debating which of their suggestions to implement?

They are not. Even if we assume congress wasn't a complete gridlocked mess, they simply do not have the bandwidth. There 535 Members of Congress and they work less than 200 days a year in a typical session.

How many regulatory bodies are there that need rules passed? I can think of the FAA, FTC, EPA, FDA, USDA, and the NRC just off the top of my head. A quick google search shows there are 19 of these rule making agencies. Even with a wide distribution of rule making authority, these agencies struggle to keep up with our rapidly evolving world.

Forcing congress to hear and make a decision on every single regulation these agencies propose would be a bottleneck that brings this country to it's knees.

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

#615

Post by elsonrodriguez » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:41 PM UTC

throw10920 wrote: post #435

voisin wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of those unelected bureaucrats are experts in their fields due to their ability to focus for entire careers.

Is Congress not capable of listening to those experts and then publicly debating which of their suggestions to implement?

Congress members bring snowballs to the floor as evidence that climate change isn't real. Some of this behavior is due to personal beliefs, but there are other factors:

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01

So due to the ignorance and corruption among conservative lawmakers regarding climate change and carbon emissions, congress has been in an ideological deadlock on the issue of climate initiatives. The EPA existing somewhat independent of that framework was a benefit.

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

#616

Post by osullivj » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:41 PM UTC

kar5pt wrote: post #594

ohCh6zos wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If nationalism is a more general form of fascism, are all, or almost all governments prior to the modern era fascist?

Nationalism is very specific to the modern era. It didn't really exist before the French Revolution. So no. Unless that was a typo and you mean to write "after the modern era"

From Shakespeare's Henry V, circa 1599...

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our English dead. Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George! '

Res ipsa loquitor...

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

#617

Post by ohCh6zos » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:41 PM UTC

kar5pt wrote: post #594

ohCh6zos wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If nationalism is a more general form of fascism, are all, or almost all governments prior to the modern era fascist?

Nationalism is very specific to the modern era. It didn't really exist before the French Revolution. So no. Unless that was a typo and you mean to write "after the modern era"

You're right, I wasn't careful enough typing.

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

#618

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:42 PM UTC

[deleted]

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

#619

Post by LargeWu » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:42 PM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #598

matthewdgreen wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case could have been decided either way. The result clearly depends on the makeup of the Court and the justices' personal inclinations. As evidence: a very similar question was decided by the Court in 2009, with a completely different result [1]. [1] https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Prote...

This doesn't make OP's point less true: the headlines surrounding this decision are misleading. This is not judicial overreach, it's an application of a different theory of judicial review than we've become accustomed to, and it's not necessarily a bad one. If we don't like it when the police creatively interpret laws to target minorities, can we allow the EPA the authority to creatively interpret laws to target foss…

"A different theory of legal review" which here means coming to a predetermined policy decision, and then inventing legal justification for it, no matter how flimsy.

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

#620

Post by kar5pt » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 4:42 PM UTC

hnrodey wrote: post #28

qalmakka wrote: post #14

The fact that people can't see that the conservatives are basically advocating worldwide for short term economic growth in exchange for basically our future is appalling to me. I am afraid we will see an immense amount of instability, increased poverty, mass migrations and authoritarian regimes rising up due to the fact that we couldn't manage to convince people that those parties do not care about them. In a previou…

The Supreme Court is focused on laws, not outcomes - as it should be.

Judges use outcomes to interpret the law all the time. There's nothing, on it's face, invalid about that approach. You may personally disagree with it, but then you'd have to justify why the rest of us should believe in a legal philosophy that's clearly going to degrade our quality of life by destroying the environment.