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

801–810 of 1001 posts

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

#801

Post by WalterBright »

ChrisLTD wrote: post #791
lolinder wrote: post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Why should the Supreme Court decide if a government agency has assumed power not granted to it by Congress? Congress still exists, and Congress can always pass a law kneecapping the agency in question.

Because our system is, by default, not one of assuming the government is all powerful and we restrict it here and there, but one where we must proactively add a power.

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

#802

Post by lolinder »

ChrisLTD wrote: post #791
lolinder wrote: post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Why should the Supreme Court decide if a government agency has assumed power not granted to it by Congress? Congress still exists, and Congress can always pass a law kneecapping the agency in question.

Because that's literally in their job description:

> The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority ... --to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

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

#803

Post by ahtihn »

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/...

> 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.

Could it be that a majority of the population in those states are against abortion? Wouldn't Why should this be regulated at the federal level?

I'm pro-choice but I can understand that some people believe life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder. If a majority of people in a state believe that, isn't it democratic to let them make laws accordingly?

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

#804

Post by tick_tock_tick »

TylerE wrote: post #660
JamesBarney wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The roe v Wade decision seemed to follow a similar pattern with the conservative opinion being about how there isn't really a basis for a constitutional right to an abortion up to viability (seems true) and the liberal dissenting opinion was about how the decision was going to be bad for women (also true) and how this opens up the floodgates to reversing a lot of other important supreme court decisions ( not sure how…

I’m waiting for the first lawsuit against the DEA. What in the constitution gives the right for the Fedwral Government to regulate what we voluntarily put in our bodies or grow in our back yards?

Consumption isn't illegal just possession.

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

#805

Post by Sakos »

spencerflem wrote: post #797
Seattle3503 wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is by and large reactionary.

I don't know why you're being downvoted, this is correct. Just offering my support and the knowledge that not all programmers are assholes with more money than sense and a smug superiority that comes from assuming the whole world is an algorithm. Just most of them.

I generally try to avoid HN discussions about politics, geopolitics or anything related to human society, because there are some ass-backwards, heartless, libertarian people here who don't care about how outcomes affect people as long as it happens to fit with their ideology. Seeing the responses here makes me feel justified.

The only reason why I come back is because the technical discussions are incredibly good.

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

#806

Post by tick_tock_tick »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #404
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…

So the EPA is kneecapped since they have to go through the most ineffective and hyper partisan congress since the founding of the country.

Yes the EPA, created by congress and given a mandate by congress, must go to congress if it wasn't new powers or authorities....

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

#807

Post by car_analogy »

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…

> The court hasn't completely prevented the EPA from making these regulations in the future - but says that Congress would have to clearly say it authorises this power.

As someone that supports far harsher emissions regulations than were in effect even before this ruling, is it too much to ask that laws should be clear? As others have pointed out, there's no limit to the danger posed by letting the executive branch creatively interpret legislation.

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

#808

Post by efitz »

DFHippie wrote: post #709
xyzzyz wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The headlines aren’t entirely wrong. 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. On the other hand, if you read liberal dissents, they’re mostly about what they think appropriate policy should be. In this particular case, the majority opinion starts off by quoting the relevant statute and analyzing its meaning, where…

> if the Congress wants EPA to regulate emissions the way they tried to do, all it needs to do is to pass a law explicitly instructing it to do so. Of course, it won’t, because there is no political will in Congress to pass this. This doesn't accurately represent the present situation on this or really any topic. It makes is sound like members of Congress simply don't care. Unless the filibuster is removed or reforme…

In my mind all this means that things are working as intended. The Constitution was set up to limit what the federal government can do, and the Congress (particularly the senate) was set up to make it hard to do things that did not have significant support over and above a simple majority.

FDR set up a bureaucratic state to try to get around this, but it’s not what the constitution envisioned.

I for one am happy that unelected bureaucrats (who the voters have no way to get rid of) now have less power, and that politicians who can be held accountable now have to act explicitly to make big changes. Again, working as designed.

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

#809

Post by scarmig »

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 agree with the Court that Congress never intended to grant the EPA that authority

Congress did grant the EPA that authority; the ruling is an objection to the principle that Congress can make broad grants of authority.

Delegation of authority is key to every effective organization. Imagine corporations were governed like this, and any time a new service or feature was rolled out, the Board of Directors would have to explicitly sign off on it. Work would grind to a halt.

Which is exactly the point of this ruling, to make the federal government even more ineffectual than it already is as part of an ideological crusade.

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

#810

Post by robonerd »

Spooky23 wrote: post #655
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…

Sure, whatever. These guys are great at espousing some high minded principle that happens to fit into whatever the desired outcome happens to be. These reactionaries represent the dead hand of a generation of people who control or seek to control to guide society to meet their own generational/dynastic wealth and power goals. I’m sure you’ll feel differently as the assaults on the 14th amendment continue and things l…

If recent SCOTUS decisions are a dead generation reaching out of the grave to get their way in the end against the united consensus of the living, then the living should have no trouble sorting Congress out and getting the right laws and amendments passed the proper way.

Of course, the truth is that living generations are not nearly so united against this as you seem to be suggesting. There certainly isn't enough consensus to pass any amendments. It's not really the dead hand of a bygone generation doing this, it's people who are still very much alive and relevant who disagree with you.

Post reply on HN