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

621–630 of 1001 posts

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

#621

Post by thepasswordis »

Sporktacular wrote: post #461
thepasswordis wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then tell the EPA to start lobbying the NRC to allow new nuclear plants and start allowing innovation in the space. The EPA is not a legislative body. If you want to make it illegal to run a coal plant because you feel like it’s your duty to force some pain on the citizenry for what you perceive as a higher calling: pass a law.

"duty to force some pain on the citizenry" You do know that coal power kills more people than any other power source right? That makes health care a hidden cost, paid by the citizenry, to subsidise an irresponsible energy industry. Think much?

Why is this so confusing?

Then pass a law.

I hope every coal plant on earth goes away forever. I hate coal plants. Get rid of them and PASS A LAW restricting their use.

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

#622

Post by thepasswordis »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #501
thepasswordis wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court self limiting their own power, and pushing it down to an democratically elected body (the congress) is good for individual liberty.

It’s literally not. Individual liberty is about freedom from government interference.

So 9 unelected lifetime appointees should be able to dictate laws, but 538 democratically elected representatives that change every 2 years based in the will of the people shouldn’t?

Huh.

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

#623

Post by xyzzyz »

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…

The headlines aren’t entirely wrong. If you look at the conservative majority opinions, you’ll find that indeed, it’s about the relevant legal issues, ie. what the law actually says. On the other hand, if you read liberal dissents, they’re mostly about what they think appropriate policy should be.

In this particular case, the majority opinion starts off by quoting the relevant statute and analyzing its meaning, whereas the dissent starts off by saying (quoting) that “climate change is the most pressing environmental challenge of our time”, and continues with a long litany of how bad it is.

Really, I find the entire thing to be rather crazy: if the Congress wants EPA to regulate emissions the way they tried to do, all it needs to do is to pass a law explicitly instructing it to do so. Of course, it won’t, because there is no political will in Congress to pass this. At the same time, the EPA’s argument in this case was that the Congress has already delegated this to EPA. Considering that the Congress won’t pass a law confirming that yes, it did in fact delegate authority to execute these particular regulations (which, again, would render the entire SCOTUS decision irrelevant), I find the EPA’s argument of rather dubious quality.

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

#625

Post by prpl »

cloutchaser wrote: post #119
elmerfud wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree it will be chaos. Congress has for far too long abdicated what it is supposed to be directly responsible for to unelected bureaucrats that exist in agencies that are overseen by the executive branch of government. Congress is now free to focused on creating chaos between the people that elect them. When is the last time you've seen anyone from Congress campaign on any substantive issue? I've not seen it…

Quoted post unavailable.

This is an interstate issue, as emissions do not respect state lines, so it can’t be decentralized to the states if that’s what you are implying.

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

#626

Post by [deleted] »

politician wrote: post #607
Workaccount2 wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the EPA is kneecapped since they have to go through the most ineffective and hyper partisan congress since the founding of the country.

And yet, fixing that problem -- the problem of the ineffectiveness and hyper-partisanship of Congress -- would have so many positive effects for all of our lives regardless of our ideological perspectives that it should be our number one priority as the electorate.

[deleted]

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

#627

Post by kemayo »

asdajksah2123 wrote: post #334
PathOfEclipse wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

The Major Questions doctrine is an invention of the Roberts court that no court before has even considered. So yeah, they made up new rules, and yes, you're right, that the rules they made up to achieve a certain goal indicate that those goals are indeed correct. Edit: The unsaid part of the "Major Questions" doctrine is that what it basically means is that the only decision maker in the US government is the Supreme…

To quote Kagan's dissent in this case: "The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the 'major questions doctrine' magically appear as get out-of-text-free cards".

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

#628

Post by giantg2 »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #404
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…

So the EPA is kneecapped since they have to go through the most ineffective and hyper partisan congress since the founding of the country.

Do you have a source for that claim? I find it hard to believe that partisan conduct didn't exist on the hot topics of the day throughout history.

For example, it took years to create a constitution, then more years for a bill of rights. There was a lot of federalist vs anti-federalist debate. Then things like slavery, segregation, etc. I mean, we fought a civil war. How much more partisan can it get than that?

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

#629

Post by Miner49er »

thepasswordis wrote: post #314

Good. I have to say that, as an anti-authoritarian, conservative advocate of individual liberty, this last week has been extremely inspiring. To those who are confused about how the system in the US works: the court has basically decreased their own power with some of these decisions. That’s the type of thing that should give everybody, regardless of affiliation, hope about the future.

How was Dobbs a win for individual liberty? Shouldn't you want the 14th amendment to protect individual liberty as widely as possible? Or do you think it's better for the Constitution to not protect individual liberties?

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

#630

Post by blowski »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #404
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…

So the EPA is kneecapped since they have to go through the most ineffective and hyper partisan congress since the founding of the country.

Perhaps there is a hyper-partisan congress because it’s a reaction to what some have viewed as a hyper-partisan Supreme Court.

On a positive reading, the Court is now saying states have the right to choose these issues for themselves. There are means in the constitution for overruling a minority of states, that is by passing a constitutional amendment. By allowing and even encouraging the Court to make these decisions, Congress has built up a democratic deficit which has exploded in its face.

On a negative reading, sadly, the Court is just as partisan now but in the other direction. Thus the deficit won’t go away.

Post reply on HN