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

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by burkaman »

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…

Where did you see a headline about judicial overreach? The headline here and in the article is objectively correct.

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

#662

Post by happythebob »

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.

You seem to think this is a both side's issue. Putin has a few bridges to sell you.

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

#663

Post by specialist »

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…

More specifically, the dissenting opinion argues that the right to abortion logically follows from all the prior rights granted to women, eg own property, voting, divorce.

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

#664

Post by ejb999 »

taylodl wrote: post #403
ejb999 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I really don't like having this unelected councils of wizards who get wield god-like "authority" but you are OK with the 'unelected council of wizards' at the EPA wielding their god-like authority instead?

Congress delegated their authority to the EPA. Congress is empowered to retain that authority and they're empowered to overrule any EPA regulation they disagree with. Congress retains all the power. When it comes to the Supreme Court - that's it. Congress can't do anything about Supreme Court rulings. Your comparison of the EPA to the Supreme Court is misguided.

>>Congress can't do anything about Supreme Court rulings.

Actually, they can, that is the whole point - congress has the power to pass laws - SC does not. That is exactly what the SC just told congress to do - their job.

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

#665

Post by [deleted] »

blowski wrote: post #630
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.

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 decision…

[deleted]

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

#666

Post by jdgoesmarching »

danenania wrote: post #566
fooey wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Could the same agencies that now regulate industry directly pivot to assisting congress with writing the laws?

Sure, if they’re lucky they might get a 30 second courtesy chat between lobbyists.

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

#667

Post by jimkleiber »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #608
jimkleiber wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. So therefore I want us to fix the gridlock in the legislative branch so they can actually legislate. I think the members of Congress have mostly been captured by the political parties, almost automatically voting with their party line, representing their party more than their actual constituencies. If someone represents my state of Michigan, I believe they don't just represent the Democrats or Republicans wh…

They vote for the money. The elimination of earmarks has made politicians more dependent on the party and good grace of industry for their elections so they have to tow the party line harder and cater to the lobby more whereas back in the day people could vote against their party if they were bringing home something else to make it worthwhile.

I agree. A friend of mine does a lot of research on Congress and says that getting rid of closed-door committees and committee votes has really increased the power of the parties for reasons you mention: it's hard to negotiate in good faith when people (e.g. lobbyists and party officials) are constantly looking over their shoulders. Earmarks and other things can give them ways to work things out when in private, compromising here and there, and coming up with a bill that will be balanced in the end.

I strongly suggest his research[0].

EDIT: Oh, and my friend[1] who does a lot of the research is a ex-NASA scientist, which is one of the reasons I also got excited about his research, as I studied electrical and computer engineering in college and was excited to see an engineering mindset applied to political dynamics.

[0]: congressionalresearch.org

[1]: https://congressionalresearch.org/JamesDangelo.html

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

#668

Post by throwaway0a5e »

kennywinker wrote: post #379
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.

> 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. Nobody wants what you described. Global warming is literally killing people by the thousands every year now. Wars are coming, mass migrations and climate refugees. This is a crisis, it’s just not a localized one. And it doesn’t have to be…

>>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

>Nobody wants what you described

Do you think everyone hear has the memory of a goldfish or are you just lying to us without a care in the world?

We can literally go into any HN thread on the subject of coal and see tons of comments to the tune of "this will cause people a bunch of pain but outlawing X, Y and Z or taxing them to create the same effect is necessary in order to get off of fossil fuels therefore it is necessary for the greater good". I don't disagree with the premise that it's gonna hurt but just turning around and saying "nobody's saying that" when it suits you is beyond bad faith behavior.

People like you are just as bad for progress as the coal lobby is because you undermine the people telling it like it is.

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

#669

Post by nimish »

voisin wrote: post #182
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…

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

And? It's Congress' job to make policy and pass laws.

They can and should take advice but the whole point of democracy is that the policymakers are democratically accountable.

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

#670

Post by sofixa »

queuebert wrote: post #351

This decision seems largely irrelevant to me, because the Democrats with their majority and White House could pass new legislation next week to authorize the EPA to do what it needs to do.

Isn't there a couple of Democrats in the Senate (who also happen to be anti-green due to blatant conflict of interest - why the hell is a senator with financial interests in coal allowed??) who refuse to allow the majority to do away with the filibuster that forces the need for a supermajority? So nobody has a majority?
Post reply on HN