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

771–780 of 1001 posts

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

#771

Post by gedy »

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.

While I understand your point, the issue is most progressive issues aren't easily traced back to clear laws or the Constitution. These very frequently depend on loose interpretations or extrapolations such as "general welfare", etc.

It would be better if these were clearly codified in laws vs being on shaky ground forever. E.g Roe v Wade

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

#772

Post by robonerd »

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…

> it's clear democracy is dying.

If democracy died every time somebody got mad at the outcomes and made claims like that, it would have been dead before it even started, and subsequently re-died every year since. What exactly was so democractic about SCOTUS permitting the executive branch to write their own laws anyway? Writing laws is meant to be the job of Congress. You can claim Congress is insufficiently democratic due to gerrymandering, but less democratic than the judicial and executive branches? Give me a break. Congress remains the most democratic of the three, and this SCOTUS decision gives power back to Congress.

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

#773

Post by csdvrx »

lolinder wrote: post #757
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,…

> 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.

Totally: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justificati...

"Lawyers for the Obama administration, arguing for their ability to kill an American citizen without trial in Yemen, contended that the protection of US citizenship was effectively removed by a key congressional act that blessed a global war against al-Qaida. Known as the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), the broad and controversial 2001 law played a major role in the legal decision to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, the former al-Qaida propagandist and US citizen, in 2011, according to a redacted memorandum made public on Monday."

I don't want the executive or the administration to use creative interpretations to allow themselves to legally become judge, jury and executioner through executive order (pun intended) that may be very hard to claw back.

The constitution and the supreme court are here for a good reason: to prevent such abuses.

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

#774

Post by kajecounterhack »

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…

> If you take an overly simplistic view of things then yes every ruling is partisan everywhere

The courts are needed because interpretation of law is NOT cut and dry. But if interpretation is involved, it's going to be partisan. If it weren't partisan, these rulings by 6-3 majorities, formed by judges appointed by Republicans, wouldn't be so in line with Republican priorities.

It's not an "overly simplistic view."

> 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

You make this sound like an objective function, which it is not. Judges can interpret the constitution differently, they can interpret written laws differently, and how the two relate can be subject to subjectivity as well.

I also question the premise. All government is beholden to the people, so while congress is supposed to pass laws that represent the will of the people, SCOTUS is ultimately supposed to interpret laws in a way that represents the will of the people as well -- THAT is its purpose. Roe's overturning is an example of that utterly failing.

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

#775

Post by spencerflem »

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…

I dont think that is obvious at all, given the broad oversight over emissions given to the EPA.

Furthermore, I think looking at the recent decisions to uphold gerrymandered maps in Alabama and Louisiana should without a shadow of a doubt prove how partisan the court is.

And they can't claim to be "literalist" or "originalist" when deciding that border patrols duties are more important than the 4th ammendment

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

#776

Post by philosopher1234 »

rayiner wrote: post #748
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 ag…

It's interesting that you are bringing the conversation back to consistency when I explicitly said my POV is that consistency (here) is a red herring.

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

#777

Post by joshstrange »

josephcsible wrote: post #759
joshstrange wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe that was badly phrased but it refers to states having more power than they should (or less) due to how the electoral college and senators work.

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

#778

Post by giantg2 »

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 don't believe people on this site are too stupid to realize that, I believe they prefer not to, because they support the outcomes these rulings enact.

And given that, we are in a lot of trouble."

If what you're saying is true, then the same could be said if the rulings went the other way. Basically the whole system is an oligarchy and the winning side will claim legitimacy and logic, while the losing side complains about a lack thereof.

So what is the solution?

Edit: why disagree without discussion or providing the solution?

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

#779

Post by InTheArena »

drewrv wrote: post #711
ceejayoz wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Qualified immunity and asset forfeiture would like a word.

This term alone the "conservative majority opinions" have been downright contradictory on "relevant legal issues". Women now have a right to defend their life with a gun but cannot defend their life with healthcare. It's clear that they are simply using "originalism" to cherry pick what falls in line with their personal opinions.

This is a (deliberate) misreading.

The Supreme Court stated that you could not apply handgun laws in a way that privileged one group over another. Historically, if you were black, no gun. White and knew the governor? Weapon up.

The supreme court's policies have been pretty straightforward if you read the constitution. The legislature has the responsibility to write the law. Not the supreme court (which is un-elected), not bureaucrats (who are un-elected) - without explicit law to make it possible.

The fact that everyone is screaming that an unelected bunch of mostly white folks are returning power to congress and telling them - no, be democratic - reveals a awful lot about the current state of the United States.

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

#780

Post by joshstrange »

remarkEon wrote: post #760
joshstrange wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

I never said relying on SCOTUS was a good idea but neither is tearing down precedent and kicking it back to an organization which will not or can not act.
Post reply on HN