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

651–660 of 1001 posts

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

#651

Post by JeremyNT »

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…

> Headlines about Supreme Court cases are almost uniformly misleading, because they suggest the Court is making decisions on policy issues rather than legal issues.

This is the naive version of how SCOTUS works that they teach us in elementary school.

History has shown that the Supreme Court is a political body with its own political agenda. The doctrine and precedent cited is used as a justification for whatever policy they actually want to enact.

Yes, there are some guidelines and guardrails, but this is a case of the tail wagging the dog. They choose their interpretation of law based on the actual impact they want to have on society.

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

#652

Post by ceejayoz »

xyzzyz wrote: post #623
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, where…

> 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.

Qualified immunity and asset forfeiture would like a word.

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

#653

Post by barsonme »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #141
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.

> Congress can still pass a law empowering EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Congress gave the EPA broad discretion that it could have revoked -- using your argument -- at any moment. This issue has been bouncing around for over a decade, and Congress has systematically declined to do so.

They’ve declined to do a lot over the last decade :)

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

#654

Post by mschuster91 »

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…

> 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.

Originalism is as bad in jurisprudence as orthodoxy is in religions. It is extremely dangerous to act like there haven't been hundreds of years of civilizatory development in all areas since the scriptures were written. Originalism/orthodoxy/fundamentalism, especially one that doesn't take contemporary issues of the text's origin into mind, always is bad.

Add on top that the judicial picks of the 45th were carefully selected for their attitudes and the GQP ignored a boatload of red flags for every single one candidate, and now it's not just "application of a different theory", it's a full-blown takeover.

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

#655

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

Sure, whatever. These guys are great at espousing some high minded principle that happens to fit into whatever the desired outcome happens to be.

These reactionaries represent the dead hand of a generation of people who control or seek to control to guide society to meet their own generational/dynastic wealth and power goals.

I’m sure you’ll feel differently as the assaults on the 14th amendment continue and things like the right to privacy are whittled down to a nub.

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

#656

Post by Sporktacular »

thepasswordis wrote: post #621
Sporktacular wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Have you seen how hard it is to pass a contentious law these days? Most people can agree about its merits but it's naive to act as if special interests haven't manufactured the contention and captured the regulatory and legislative processes.

We don't have the luxury of proceduralism any more.

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

#657

Post by giantg2 »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #391
cloutchaser wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Due to things like the electoral college, gerrymandering, vote suppression tactics, and senate representation to name just few, the US is not very democratic. Nor can these be fixed under current conditions because of the above list.

There's a strong argument for senate representation being a feature, not a bug. After all, it's a democratic republic of a union of separate states.

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

#658

Post by neosystem »

xxpor wrote: post #411
tablespoon wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Huh? Remember Ajit Pai? It hasn't been that long. It's profoundly anti-d…

Ajit Pai got kicked out when the administration changed! Exactly how it should be! They're not unaccountable, the president can dismiss them. Just like Trump fired Janet Yellen, and SCOTUS already ruled the structure of CFPB where removal for cause was required is unconstitutional. The idea congress is "democratic" is a huge joke. There's a reason why the House of Lords has essentially no power any more. Let alone th…

Everything you say may or may not be true, but it doesn’t address the point of the ruling or what's under debate. If you don’t believe that the Congress is representative of the will of the people, your issues are not with this or that law or SCOTUS ruling, but with the fundamental structures of the American republic.

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

#659

Post by jdgoesmarching »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #391
cloutchaser wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Due to things like the electoral college, gerrymandering, vote suppression tactics, and senate representation to name just few, the US is not very democratic. Nor can these be fixed under current conditions because of the above list.

No you don’t understand, being more democratic in the abstract is more important than actual rights being stripped away or retaining the bare minimum environmental regulations on companies that are destroying the planet.

It’s sad how the flimsiest well-actuallys carry so much weight around here. Anyone making arguments around recent decisions being democratic has their head buried in the sand about how blatantly undemocratic the US has been since its inception.

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

#660

Post by TylerE »

JamesBarney wrote: post #643
xyzzyz wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, where…

The roe v Wade decision seemed to follow a similar pattern with the conservative opinion being about how there isn't really a basis for a constitutional right to an abortion up to viability (seems true) and the liberal dissenting opinion was about how the decision was going to be bad for women (also true) and how this opens up the floodgates to reversing a lot of other important supreme court decisions ( not sure how…

I’m waiting for the first lawsuit against the DEA. What in the constitution gives the right for the Fedwral Government to regulate what we voluntarily put in our bodies or grow in our back yards?
Post reply on HN