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

761–770 of 1001 posts

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

#761

Post by JohnHaugeland »

luma wrote: post #203
JohnHaugeland wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We managed for hundreds of years.

Yet somehow we also managed to appoint SC judges without the senate stalling nominations to prevent the president from being able to appoint them. Let's not pretend that the current situation represents anything like "normal", and further, that we don't all recognize that bad-faith actions by the Republican party are responsible.

> Yet somehow we also managed to appoint SC judges without the senate stalling nominations to prevent the president from being able to appoint them.

Yeah, that's because change happened.

Pretending that something can't be done because it worked for hundreds of years and then something bad happened isn't actually very correct.

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

#762

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

burkaman wrote: post #695
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…

Read the dissent and see if you don't find it equally convincing. Supreme Court justices are very smart and very good at their jobs and it's not surprising that pretty much everything they write sounds reasonable and well-argued. Key quote from the dissent: > Section 111 of the Clean Air Act directs EPA to regulate stationary sources of any substance that “causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution” and t…

So you would be fine with the EPA regulating marijuana?

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

#763

Post by InTheArena »

EricDeb wrote: post #736
philwelch wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They have been hyper-progressive, and hyper-regressive. As RBG noted - the USSC got out "in front of" the law with Roe V. Wade - which resulted in it invalidating every state law (pro or anti-abortion) and caused a era of dramatically increased polarization.

They also wrote Dredd Scott, Ferguson, Citizens United, and Korematsu.

At what point do you constrain the power of the supreme court to make law as opposed to interpret it?

The Supreme Court has done far more damage then help, historically.

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

#764

Post by radley »

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.

That's a farcical excuse to achieve the desired outcome. If the only "acceptable expert advice" is 200 years old, then they're just being obstinate.

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

#765

Post by Buttons840 »

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…

As an example, my understanding is that the federal government can regulate my ability to grow a plant and consume it in my own home based upon their argument that I'm participating in interstate commerce. The feds argued that growing a plan is participating in interstate commerce[1]. This law will stand while the court clutches their pearls about the environmental protection agency seeking to protect the environment.

[1]: I'm trying to find the source. Something to do with the commerce clause I think. There was a court case where the government clearly argued that even local actions inside the state count as interstate commerce. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn?wprov=sfla1

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

#766

Post by JohnHaugeland »

thesiniot wrote: post #216
JohnHaugeland wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We managed for hundreds of years.

That was before the Senate hijacked the normal nomination process in 2016. The court has been an illegitimate and partisan body ever since Garland's seat was denied.

> That was before the Senate hijacked the normal nomination process in 2016.

Yes, it was. What's your point?

Parent poster claimed that a non-political Supreme Court isn't possible, and in reality, the Supreme Court has been essentially completely non-political for all but about 22 years of its existence

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

#768

Post by belorn »

equalsione wrote: post #227
cloutchaser wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Over 60% of the US population think abortion should be legal. More than half of US states are (or are very likely) to institute abortion bans. To the broader point, there has to be _representative_ democracy for decentralized decision making to be fair - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2021/nov/...

50% of the US population don't live in 50% of the US states.

This has both benefits and drawback. The decision of more than half of US states will impact less than half the us states citizens.

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

#769

Post by philosopher1234 »

itsoktocry wrote: post #756
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.

I never claimed either of those things. I am biased too. We are all biased. We should be discussing openly our opinions of these outcomes, not wasting time hiding behind procedural arguments.

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

#770

Post by csdvrx »

bmitc wrote: post #724
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…

Societal concerns cannot be deterministically determined via deductive logic. So, people who hide behind "this sounds logical to me", whether intentionally or not, just happen to agree with the specific logic used in that instance. When presented with other so-called logic, suddenly it's illogical.

> just happen to agree with the specific logic used in that instance

That's a very biased take.

I think someone else said it better: what both the "progressive" and the "neocons" want is "a CCP-style political system as long as they're the ones in control" where "concepts like separation of powers and rule of law are merely obstacles to smash through on their road to utopia"

It's very rare than unconstitutional power grants are clawed back, so personally I see what's happening right now as a good precedent: it says the executive and the administration can't just wish into existence new laws or power grants: they have to operate within their existing bounds.

Deductive logic is totally applicable here. Otherwise, it gives you a situation where a president believes he can legally become judge, jury and executioner through executive order (pun intended) and order the army to execute US citizens by birthright through drone strikes.

Just because they are enemy combatants or some other convenient legal fiction doesn't make it a-ok.

Post reply on HN