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

81–90 of 1001 posts

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

#81

Post by lotsofpulp »

rajup wrote: post #71
lotsofpulp wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the US Congress passed an amendment that stated abortion is legal nationwide, then the Supreme Court would not be able to strike it down as that would be the new federal law.

Is a constitutional amendment different than a federal law when it comes to how it’s treated by the SCOTUS?

Amendments and laws are the same thing, so no. The Constitution can refer to the original laws, or the collection of original laws plus all the new ones.

When Congress passes a law, the law (sometimes referred to as the Constitution) gets amended, hence it is also referred to as an amendment.

Edit: ignore this comment, my information was incorrect!

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

#82

Post by cujo »

akmarinov wrote: post #11
itslennysfault wrote: post #7

These guys are on a roll. Yesterday was giving states legal rights over indigenous nations. Today this. I was already planning to expat soon, but this all makes me want to try to hurry that timeline. Sorry to those of you that are stuck in this hellscape.

You’re looking to become an immigrant somewhere?

Is this supposed to be a gotcha? That's clearly what OP is saying. What makes that unreasonable?

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

#83

Post by scifibestfi »

qalmakka wrote: post #14

The fact that people can't see that the conservatives are basically advocating worldwide for short term economic growth in exchange for basically our future is appalling to me. I am afraid we will see an immense amount of instability, increased poverty, mass migrations and authoritarian regimes rising up due to the fact that we couldn't manage to convince people that those parties do not care about them. In a previou…

This sounds like GPT-3 trained on partisan talking points. If it's not, isn't it weird that you didn't notice that Democrats keep promising to codify Roe but never do? They had 40 years!! If they solved the problem, they wouldn't have that to campaign on and raise money with. Keep people enraged to get their vote. You're spot on about that, but it's how both parties operate. Never solve the problem so it'll be there next cycle.

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

#84

Post by nixgeek »

Victerius wrote: post #58
xthrowawayxx wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a good thing that laws can't pass without sufficient consensus. If you can bypass consensus for the greater good then so can the other side.

The rise of China is testing and will continue to test this assumption. The Chinese government does not require consensus. It can build 40,000 kilometers of high speed rail in just a few years. It can pull hundreds of millions from poverty. It can shut down entire companies and industries overnight (e.g. private school tutoring), jail corrupt corporate executives, and in general coerce compliance to any law. Do you k…

They’re ruthlessly efficient at persecuting the Uyghurs as well. I’m not sure “ruthless efficiency” is actually that desirable in a government.

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

#85

Post by elmerfud »

gumby wrote: post #24

What’s interesting about this ruling (if you listened to the oral arguments and read the ruling) is that it appears to undercut the ability for any executive agency to make a rule, under them claim that congress cannot delegate its powers. So the FAA can’t determine and then require that aircraft have transponders. Congress has to do this. If they continue down this path it will be chaos.

I don't agree it will be chaos. Congress has for far too long abdicated what it is supposed to be directly responsible for to unelected bureaucrats that exist in agencies that are overseen by the executive branch of government.

Congress is now free to focused on creating chaos between the people that elect them. When is the last time you've seen anyone from Congress campaign on any substantive issue? I've not seen it in my lifetime they leave that campaign up to the president. Congress is invested with the sole power to regulate our money when is the last time you've seen them do anything except throw up bloated budgets? They have completely advocated that power to the Federal reserve of which they exercise zero oversight of and apparently leave it to the president who also lets it run autonomously.

So what you call chaos is reconnecting the actual responsibilities of our elected representatives with their duties. I for one would very much enjoy seeing my elected representative actually doing their constitutional duties instead of pitting citizen that one another's throat in order to get reelected again.

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

#86

Post by micromacrofoot »

Bostonian wrote: post #22

What the government should do about climate change should be decided by legislation agreed upon by the President and Congress, not by an administrative agency.

Now consider for a moment, who created this administrative agency.

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

#87

Post by Aarostotle »

Victerius wrote: post #58
xthrowawayxx wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a good thing that laws can't pass without sufficient consensus. If you can bypass consensus for the greater good then so can the other side.

The rise of China is testing and will continue to test this assumption. The Chinese government does not require consensus. It can build 40,000 kilometers of high speed rail in just a few years. It can pull hundreds of millions from poverty. It can shut down entire companies and industries overnight (e.g. private school tutoring), jail corrupt corporate executives, and in general coerce compliance to any law. Do you k…

No post body was provided.

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

#88

Post by Clent »

User23 wrote: post #31
qalmakka wrote: post #14

The fact that people can't see that the conservatives are basically advocating worldwide for short term economic growth in exchange for basically our future is appalling to me. I am afraid we will see an immense amount of instability, increased poverty, mass migrations and authoritarian regimes rising up due to the fact that we couldn't manage to convince people that those parties do not care about them. In a previou…

I’m not a conservative, but this ruling is good because it’s interpreting the law as written, which is the only fair way to apply it. Reducing the politicalization of the courts by getting judges away from ruling based on their desired policy rather than the law is probably insufficient, but it’s necessary to maintain general confidence in the system over time. If you want policy changes to handle whatever real or im…

No it's not. Anyone can interpret anything as anything else, this is proven over and over throughout history.

This supreme court has been stomping the other branches of government.

Congress created the EPA. If they don't like what they created, it's on them to fix it.

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

#89

Post by pigtailgirl »

morninglight wrote: post #5

Donald Trump lives, and his legacy will be controlling your life for many years.

-- from an outside perspective it feels like declined American manufacturing / skilled labour simply continuing it's reflection into the American society? - this started long before trump? -- bail out the banks > 1% hate > occupy wall st etc > "coastal elite" > state pride > trump etc > appetite in the country for the court to address federal vs state precedent? Could be wrong, just how it looks from the outside --

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

#90

Post by voxic11 »

khuey wrote: post #54
brodouevencode wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is as much a blow to chevron deference than anything. This is a good thing.

I haven't read the opinion in detail but it doesn't appear they touched Chevron, merely ruling this particular case falls under the preexisting major questions doctrine/exception to Chevron.

If you read the dissent they seem to be claiming the majority opinion greatly expands the circumstances in which the major questions exception applies. Which would be a big hit to Chevron making it apply in far fewer cases.
Post reply on HN