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

731–740 of 1001 posts

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

#731

Post by rayiner »

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.

Justin Trudeau became Prime Minister of Canada last year despite his party winning almost 200,000 fewer votes than Conservatives. Does that mean that Canada's Parliament "does not represent the actual will of the people?"

If "we had a parliamentary system"--where the executive is selected by the Party that wins the most votes in the lower house--Bush still would have won in 2000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_House_of_Re...) and Trump still would have won in 2016 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_Re...).

If 'we had a parliamentary system" Biden would be shown the door next year when Republicans again win a majority of not only House seats, but total votes for House candidates.

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

#732

Post by SllX »

egg1 wrote: post #703
SllX wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there was once a Congress that passed the Missouri Compromise which institutionalized hyper-partisanship and another that was so ineffective its successor Congress literally fell apart when several States seceded from the Union and those States then went to War with the Union. So, cut the hyperbole. Partisanship has always been a political reality. The EPA is capped to the powers that Congress gave it, and does…

I fear what a lot of what outspoken "progressive" types (and yes, before anyone asks, also the MAGA crowd) want is a CCP-style political system as long as they're the ones in control. Concepts like separation of powers and rule of law are merely obstacles to smash through on their road to utopia.

Correct. Which is why both of those groups you listed along with many others need to continue to lose elections and fail to attain power because the endgame for them is eliminating the possibility that they ever lose an election again. Like the CCP has.

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

#733

Post by philosopher1234 »

extheat wrote: post #716
philosopher1234 wrote: post #699

Every surpreme court article makes me hate this community a bit more. There is far too much obsessing over "their logic is consistent" and far too much intentional ignorance of the fact that they chose which logic to bring to bear on which issues, and that there are many other possible ways to apply consistent logic. Their logic can be consistent and they can still be partisans, looking to implement a specific agenda…

If you take an overly simplistic view of things then yes every ruling is partisan everywhere. This by itself is not a meaningful insight because all forms of government will be corrupt. The purpose of SCOTUS isn’t to rule based on what the desired outcome is, it’s to rule based on what the law explicitly does say and is permitted to say per the Constitution. I believe if we set aside climate change, for most reasonab…

>The purpose of SCOTUS isn’t to rule based on what the desired outcome is, it’s to rule based on what the law explicitly does say and is permitted to say per the Constitution

I claim they have never done this. That every ruling has had an eye towards the outcome, whether stated or unstated, and that when they claim to be acting as mechanistic evaluators they are attempting to hide their interest in the effect they're having.

Besides, its a terrible idea. The real effects of their rulings matter much more than the philosophy.

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

#734

Post by idontpost »

DFHippie wrote: post #709
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 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. This doesn't accurately represent the present situation on this or really any topic. It makes is sound like members of Congress simply don't care. Unless the filibuster is removed or reforme…

No post body was provided.

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

#735

Post by philosopher1234 »

the_only_law wrote: post #729
philosopher1234 wrote: post #699

Every surpreme court article makes me hate this community a bit more. There is far too much obsessing over "their logic is consistent" and far too much intentional ignorance of the fact that they chose which logic to bring to bear on which issues, and that there are many other possible ways to apply consistent logic. Their logic can be consistent and they can still be partisans, looking to implement a specific agenda…

> Every surpreme court article makes me hate this community a bit more. I mean, HN is kinda a go to place for pendantry, it's not terribly surprising. People started a huge fight over whether the word "they" can refer to a single individual the other week.

I think you give HN too much credit.

Not every topic evokes pedantry. HN has specific interests, and brings out nitpicking to advance specific causes.

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

#736

Post by EricDeb »

philwelch wrote: post #679
JeremyNT wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pol…

The majority of justices on the current Supreme Court have been doing a good job of sticking to the law rather than attempting to enact policy. What you’re describing is a good criticism of the mid-20th century Supreme Court, but the current Court has done a good job of rolling back those excesses.

So flip the entire thing and say Congress and the presidency were hyper-progressive. Do you not think this court would use the constitution to strike down their laws (say universal healthcare or something)? They are only rolling back these excesses because it fits their ideology.

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

#737

Post by scarface74 »

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…

Is there a constitutional right to marry someone of another race? (Loving vs Virginia). Is there a constitutional right for gay people to get married (Obergefell vs Hodges)? Is there a constitutional right to buy contraceptive?

Guess which two of those Thomas wants to revisit and the one he probably doesn’t?

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

#738

Post by nostromo »

tialaramex wrote: post #676
nostromo wrote: post #309

The theme this session has been the court pushing lots of decisions back to congress, away from the executive, and away from the court itself. For all the consternation, these decisions are very mutable. Congress just needs to pass laws.

> Congress just needs to pass laws. For so long as the American people respect the US Supreme Court, their laws can be nullified on the say-so of this Court and are thus worthless. That's the underlying point of this whole suite of rulings. Congress can write laws, the Court can decide they don't mean what you thought they mean, and, apparently, you will cheerfully conclude that the Court is wise and you're foolish,…

You're catastrophizing.

So far this court seems to be largely giving more power to voters and their representatives to create law, limiting their own power (Dobbs), and giving power to the states.

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

#739

Post by johndhi »

extheat wrote: post #716
philosopher1234 wrote: post #699

Every surpreme court article makes me hate this community a bit more. There is far too much obsessing over "their logic is consistent" and far too much intentional ignorance of the fact that they chose which logic to bring to bear on which issues, and that there are many other possible ways to apply consistent logic. Their logic can be consistent and they can still be partisans, looking to implement a specific agenda…

If you take an overly simplistic view of things then yes every ruling is partisan everywhere. This by itself is not a meaningful insight because all forms of government will be corrupt. The purpose of SCOTUS isn’t to rule based on what the desired outcome is, it’s to rule based on what the law explicitly does say and is permitted to say per the Constitution. I believe if we set aside climate change, for most reasonab…

>The purpose of SCOTUS isn’t to rule based on what the desired outcome is, it’s to rule based on what the law explicitly does say

This is actually a modern take that was essentially created by Justice Scalia. I like the take ("textualism") in many ways but, to be clear, the SCOTUS has no such mandate.

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

#740

Post by pfortuny »

philosopher1234 wrote: post #733
extheat wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take an overly simplistic view of things then yes every ruling is partisan everywhere. This by itself is not a meaningful insight because all forms of government will be corrupt. The purpose of SCOTUS isn’t to rule based on what the desired outcome is, it’s to rule based on what the law explicitly does say and is permitted to say per the Constitution. I believe if we set aside climate change, for most reasonab…

>The purpose of SCOTUS isn’t to rule based on what the desired outcome is, it’s to rule based on what the law explicitly does say and is permitted to say per the Constitution I claim they have never done this. That every ruling has had an eye towards the outcome, whether stated or unstated, and that when they claim to be acting as mechanistic evaluators they are attempting to hide their interest in the effect they're…

The burden of proof on such a sweeping statement is clearly on you…
Post reply on HN