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

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

#751

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

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 legislative branch did give these agencies permission to take the actions they have, when those agencies were founded. The fact that SCOTUS disagrees doesn't make them right.

Also, outcomes matter. If before a ruling, a group of people had rights, and after a ruling those people have fewer rights, the cause of the loss of those rights is the ruling.

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

#752

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

mistrial9 wrote: post #697

dfxm12 wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the strategy of the Federalist Society, make rulings via the undemocratic SCOTUS under the guise of giving states/congress power, but then also making sure that state elections are undemocratic via gerrymandering, voting laws, etc. It doesn't help that taking action on matters of national importance is inherently difficult in a Federalist government.

from Wikipedia '... The Federalist Society provides its 70,000 members with "intellectual sparring and professional grooming.' without taking sides on this attorney gang, it seems to be like a bunch of professional boxers and others here are mad because they cannot fight. I do not want to fight lawyers, but calling them a conspiracy, when they specifically engage and practice debate professionally, is sort of patheti…

> but calling them a conspiracy, when they specifically engage and practice debate professionally, is sort of pathetic honestly.

Debating professionally precludes conspiracy? What if a high-school debate club decides to rob a bank?

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

#753

Post by hcurtiss » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:38 PM UTC

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…

No post body was provided.

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

#754

Post by lemmiwinks » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:39 PM UTC

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.

> People started a huge fight over whether the word "they" can refer to a single individual the other week.

Link please?

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

#755

Post by ahtihn » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:39 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #654

lolinder wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Originalism is as bad in jurisprudence as orthodoxy is in religions.

There's nothing stopping you from rewriting the laws. Religions don't work that way.

Although, the US constitution is almost a religious text the way it's treated as almost sacred. Why does anyone still care what the founders intended? They're not prophets...

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

#756

Post by itsoktocry » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:40 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…

>Their logic can be consistent and they can still be partisans, looking to implement a specific agenda.

While your logic is consistent, unbiased, agenda-free and non-partisan.

>because they support the outcomes these rulings enact.

While the fact that you do not support these outcomes has no bearing in your opinions on the matter.

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

#757

Post by lolinder » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:40 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 support this ruling not because I think that the EPA shouldn't have the authority to cap emissions, but because I agree with the Court that Congress never intended to grant the EPA that authority. I believe strongly that the executive authorities--be that police, FBI, NSA, ICE, or EPA--should not have the ability to creatively interpret laws. If we allow them to do that, we open the door to innumerable abuses.

So, yes, I support the outcomes of this ruling just as much as I support the reasoning. Congress needs to get its act together and legislate, not let the Executive branch make up rules to fill the void they've left.

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

#758

Post by post_break » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:41 PM UTC

barsonme wrote: post #743

post_break wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A machine gun is already defined as something that fires multiple times with a single trigger pull. Not sure what you’re saying?

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

#759

Post by josephcsible » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:41 PM UTC

joshstrange wrote: post #746

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…

How does land have power over people? States with more land don't have more representation than states with less land, but states with more people do have more representation than states with fewer people. As a concrete example, New Jersey has the same representation in the Senate and 12x the representation in the House as Alaska, despite only having 1% of the land of Alaska.

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

#760

Post by remarkEon » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 5:41 PM UTC

joshstrange wrote: post #746

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…

This is confusing. You claim that we have "minority rule" when certain things have to be done through Congress ... but by implication you prefer these decisions be made by SCOTUS (an unelected "minority" if there ever was one)?