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

681–690 of 1001 posts

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

#681

Post by bashinator »

TylerE wrote: post #660
JamesBarney wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why stop at “grow”? I don’t see why the federal government should have any say over in what chemicals I might want to purchase or manufacture.

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

#682

Post by tablespoon »

syrrim wrote: post #671
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…

If congress disagreed with this interpretation, they could pass a law explicitly ruling it out. The power of the supreme court in this regard relies on the fact that congress has great difficulty passing any law at all, and thus whatever interpretation given by the supreme court is likely to persist. >If you look at the conservative majority opinions, you’ll find that indeed, it’s about the relevant legal issues, ie.…

> If congress disagreed with this interpretation, they could pass a law explicitly ruling it out.

But that would be backwards and wrong (like a default-allow firewall rule).

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

#683

Post by specialist »

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 has the powers to investigate, deliberate, and legislate. Not administrate. That power was explicitly granted to the executive branch.

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

#684

Post by tablespoon »

TylerE wrote: post #660
JamesBarney wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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?

My bet? "Interstate commerce."

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

#685

Post by AnimalMuppet »

willis936 wrote: post #49
xpe wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain.

I'll attempt to explain on their behalf: technocracy bad, regulatory capture good.

Don't put words in other peoples' mouths. Especially strawman words.

It's not honest, it's not nice, and it's against the site guidelines.

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

#687

Post by giantg2 »

TylerE wrote: post #660
JamesBarney wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I've had a similar thought process. We had an implicit right to privacy for abortion, but not for practically anything else (a couple other things, but some of them were also bizarre. Like how can you have privacy over who you marry if you're required to get a license before hand and they can still ban some classes/conditions but not others). If it is a right, it should apply universally. If not, then we need to start creating those rights in the constitution (where it requires larger agreement and isn't as easy to overturn). But maybe I'm crazy.

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

#688

Post by remarkEon »

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…

Indeed, the reaction to this from lawmakers is really perplexing. They're claiming that the Court is "rogue" or something, but if you actually read what they wrote they are returning power from the executive to congress (or making it clear that Congress always had this power, not the executive). The reaction makes me think there are many lawmakers who are rather uninterested in making laws, and instead actually do want to see unelected Judges and executive bureaucrats implement their preferred policy options instead of doing the (hard) work of writing and passing those policies themselves.

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

#689

Post by AbrahamParangi »

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.

I think the argument is that the EPA considered itself to have broad discretion and congress was silent on the matter, and more generally do the executive functions have whatever discretion they assume to have unless congress specifically limits them? Or rather, do they have only the permit that congress gives them?

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

#690

Post by refurb »

AlexandrB wrote: post #641
cloutchaser wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

The idea that Republicans are seeking increased states' rights in good faith is contradicted my most available evidence. Not only have they fought legalizing weed federally, but right after the Roe v. Wade ruling we had Republican politicians advocating for a federal abortion ban[1]. Believing that these ruling will make things more democratic requires ignoring what Republican lawmakers both say and do. [1] https://n…

Fought weed legalization? The Republicans sponsored a bill to make it legal federally.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/annakaplan/2021/11/15/republica...

A group of Republican lawmakers introduced a bill Monday to federally decriminalize and tax marijuana, adding an alternative to sweeping Democratic proposals for major marijuana reform and narrow GOP-backed efforts to deschedule the drug in the U.S.

Post reply on HN