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

781–790 of 1001 posts

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

#781

Post by LordDragonfang »

exabrial wrote: post #205

I agree with "congress cannot delegate it's powers" to a certain extent. Negative example: The BATF has a splendid history of literally doing nothing except putting it's critics behind bars, while solving 0 actual crime and preventing any sort of mass tradgedies. Positive example: The FAA has done an incredible job making air-travel safer than car travel. I have a feeling that a lot of the higher-ups are former engin…

>Good example: The FDA

I'm not sure whether "good" is better or worse than "positive", but the FDA is definitely closer to "mixed" than the FAA. I'm generally very pro-FDA for the reasons you listed, and argue against the libertarians who want to abolish it. However, there's lots of legitimate criticisms about how it's frequently too conservative in allowing trials or approval for potentially life-saving medication, or approving medications and supplements that are considered safe and commonly-used by other countries.

Scott Alexander of SSC/ACX has many[1][2][3], many[4][5][6] posts pointing out instances in which the FDA's arguable-excessive roadblocks have failed US healthcare patients, coming from his experience as a professional psychiatrist.

[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/09/28/sleep-now-by-prescript...

[2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/15/fish-now-by-prescripti...

[3] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/an-iron-curtain-has-de...

[4] https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/03/11/ketamine-now-by-prescr...

[5] https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/11/26/a-letter-i-will-probab...

[6] https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/29/reverse-voxsplaining-d...

[7] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/adumbrations-of-aducan...

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

#782

Post by barsonme »

post_break wrote: post #758
barsonme wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

To be clear: I’m not advocating anything, just stating that Congress could choose to delegate that authority as a result of the ruling.

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

#783

Post by tuckerman »

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)?

Not who you are replying to, but my personal take is that we are deciding between Congress and career government employees making these regulations, not Congress and SCOTUS.

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

#784

Post by Seattle3503 »

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…

HN is by and large reactionary.

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

#785

Post by whitesilhouette »

Buttons840 wrote: post #765
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…

This one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn?wprov=sfla1

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

#787

Post by esarbe »

Oh boy. At least we can now put the myth of the "apolitical" Supreme Court at rest and start thinking about how to reform it.

The Supreme Court has been overreaching for some time now, maybe it's time to limit its powers? Term limits or rotating seats might also be options.

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

#788

Post by ironman1478 »

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.

HN is just a forum. Its not much different than Reddit, its just more moderated which I greatly appreciate. I think the people aren't stupid. Its just that people have grown up being told the Supreme Court was some non-partisan objective organization, when really is full of partisan hacks and law by very nature is political. Its hard to undo years of hearing the same thing.

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

#789

Post by Bostonian »

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…

A counterexample to the idea that the Court is just trying to implement a right-wing agenda is just ruled 5-4 in BIDEN ET AL. v. TEXAS ET AL. that Biden could discontinue Trump's "remain in Mexico" immigration policy. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh. https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/Biden-v-Texas-0...

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

#790

Post by etherael »

giantg2 wrote: post #778
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 complain…

Stop tyring to do everything through naked force and pursue market solutions that people adopt because it's economically advantageous for them to do so?

Stop sending SWAT teams at people already trying to do this? (https://youtu.be/i4Hnv_ZJSQY?t=250)

Everybody who looks hard enough knows that neither of these things will happen and we know why. That people ignore it or pretend otherwise is the real problem at the root of this whole situation.

Post reply on HN