Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions • Hacker News Board

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

#741

Post by JamesBarney » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:33 PM UTC

40acres wrote: post #441

rayiner wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody denies that "Congress deliberately leaves leeway in laws to give the executive branch flexibility." The whole point of this case is that Congress gave the EPA leeway to decide standards and scrubbing technologies for toxic pollutants, and the EPA stretched that leeway far beyond what Congress intended to address a completely different problem involving a non-toxic alleged pollutant.

The court has already ruled in Chevron v. NRDC that executive agencies have deference in interpretation of statues if Congress has not explicitly granted that power. The Clean Air act was passed in 1970 to ensure air quality, through science and the advancement of our understanding the EPA has identified CO2 as a toxic pollutant. I don't understand why we need an updated law by Congress when the EPA is much closer to…

But does Congress or the EPA get to determine that scope?

You're arguing that the EPA gets to make that call. The supreme court says it's Congress.

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

#742

Post by bmitc » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:33 PM UTC

> In a 6-3 ruling, the court sided with the conservative states and fossil-fuel companies, ...

What a surprise. How many Republicans are on the Supreme Court again?

> ... agreeing that Congress had not "intended to delegate... decision[s] of such economic and political significance".

Apparently the Supreme Court does not believe that the Environmental Protection Agency was intended to be given agency to protect the environment. It's like a The Onion parody.

> Attorney General Eric Schmitt for Missouri - one of the 19 states - called it a "big victory... that pushes back on the Biden EPA's job-killing regulations".

There the Republicans are again, beating the jobs drum in a period of historic lows of unemployment. Small government to them means big government where they want and small elsewhere, e.g., Congress and the Supreme Court acting as protector for corporations.

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

#743

Post by barsonme » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:33 PM UTC

post_break wrote: post #535

rabuse wrote: post #235

I hope they go after the unconstitutional agency known as the "ATF" next.

That's exactly what this may do. The ATF in theory can't just up and decide what to ban without congress making a law. Turning law abiding citizens into felons overnight. Bumpstock ban? That's gone in theory. FRT trigger? Braces? ATF is going to quickly realize they can't just make shit up on the fly if it's not a law.

Or Congress could pass legislation granting ATF authority to determine what constitutes a machine gun under the National Firearms Act.

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

#744

Post by spencerflem » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:34 PM UTC

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…

Thank you for saying this, i completly agree.

It honestly makes me ashamed to be a programmer associating with this type of person whos completely incapable of understanding even the simplest social issue

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

#745

Post by taylorbuley » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:34 PM UTC

One of the key issues at play is that when there is no clear interpretation of a statue, that a regular can interpret that in whichever way they want. This was a legal noodle that a previous administration didn't even know would stick. The result is that the executive branch just lost of a lot of interpretational leeway.

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

#746

Post by joshstrange » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:34 PM UTC

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…

I understand the idea of the SC kicking things back to congress and that would be well and good if we didn't have minority rule in this country coupled with the outsized power that land has over people. On top of that we have a disgusting high rep->citizen ratio because of a silly law congress passed capping it's size. Throw in gerrymandering and election boards rejecting results of elections (and things like Jan 6th) and it's clear democracy is dying.

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

#747

Post by johndhi » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:34 PM UTC

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…

I, for one, wish the EPA (or some body) were empowered to do more than it does, but I also (to some degree) respect the logic of many conservative judicial opinions. Just sayin.

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

#748

Post by rayiner » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:35 PM UTC

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 that's your argument, then surely the proper approach is to criticize the Court for those instances where their logic isn't consistent, instead of when the logic is consistent. For example, Thomas vigorously dissented in Gonzales v. Raich, where Scalia voted to uphold federal marijuana restrictions as a proper exercise of the Commerce power.

There is nothing wrong with judges having an "agenda" as long as that agenda rests on legal doctrine and philosophy, and not "outcomes."

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

#749

Post by johndhi » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

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…

Congress wouldn't ratify 99% of court decisions even when the text of their bill is very clear l. The argument you make in the last sentence of your post is very weak.

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

#750

Post by Goronmon » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

barsonme wrote: post #715

Goronmon wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The decision looks simple and correct to me, even with only reading from the very left biased BBC article. Despite your very right biased comment, I don't buy the idea that congress needs to write legislation down to specific policy details that might come up with every minute aspect of what is intending to be legislated. I don't think elected politicians are capable of being knowledgeable enough to give specific gui…

> do you really want a US senator voting on what level of chemicals are allowed to be present in drinking water? That’s not the level of granularity here. Using your hypothetical example about clean drinking water, Congress would need to delegate authority to EPA to regulate clean drinking water instead of EPA inferring or assuming it has that authority because of some other unrelated statute. Congress itself would n…

Congress itself would not decide what a safe level of arsenic is, EPA experts would.

But as you said the EPA only would have the authority to regulate "clean drinking water", and since arsenic isn't drinking water, then the EPA would have no authority to regulate it unless Congress specifically says so.