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

811–820 of 1001 posts

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

#811

Post by InTheArena »

scottLobster wrote: post #316
jimmygrapes wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I truly wish more people were legally literate, and considering how much intellectual overlap there is between software engineering and legal writing I would have expected better from the HN crowd, but so far all I see is a lot of talking point parroting about partisanship from those who clearly haven't even tried to read the rulings.

Given the quality of the conversation on Reddit (top-voted memes calling Justice Barrett a handmaiden and so forth), HN is still a cut above :)

Reddit is beyond toxic at the moment.

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

#812

Post by WalterBright »

spencerflem wrote: post #775
extheat wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Both parties engage in gerrymandering whenever they get the chance.

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

#813

Post by giantg2 »

etherael wrote: post #790
giantg2 wrote: post #778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 r…

Are you talking about capitalist or free market minarchy?

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

#814

Post by robonerd »

burkaman wrote: post #796
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you would be fine with the EPA regulating marijuana?

If they had convincing scientific evidence that marijuana both contributes significantly to air pollution and endangers public health, yes I would be. Edit: Actually I think the particular Clean Air Act section in question only covers buildings or other "stationary sources", so I don't think marijuana would qualify unless a building was emitting marijuana smoke.

That sounds like technocracy, not democracy.

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

#815

Post by ErikVandeWater »

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…

One can read a ruling and see how many hoops the justices jumped through to get to a particular decision.

Let me lead by saying I'm a pro choice person, and hope federal legislation is passed protecting abortion in all 50 states:

Roe V. Wade is a good example. The justices didn't find any mention of "abortion", any description of abortion, or any medical procedure whatsoever in the constitution, or any mention of "trimesters". Yet they found by using a combination of no less than 5 amendments, that it in fact was protected, and then the supreme court decided exactly how long into a pregnancy abortion could be banned. They probably had consistent logic in what they said technically, but it strained credulity too much to believe they actually thought the constitution, in the text as it was written, protected a right to abortion.

Would you agree the sword cuts both ways with regards to the statement:

> 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.

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

#816

Post by InTheArena »

tablespoon wrote: post #434
zionic wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The reason people are mad is because the court is relitigating long settled cases which breaks the main principle of the court A bad decision is a bad decision no matter how long it's been in effect. If anything, following "precedent" is what got us into this mess in the first place. We could have ripped the bandaid off decades ago on abortion and fixed it then. Now it's going to be much more messy.

> A bad decision is a bad decision no matter how long it's been in effect. If anything, following "precedent" is what got us into this mess in the first place. We could have ripped the bandaid off decades ago on abortion and fixed it then. Now it's going to be much more messy. IMHO, what actually got us in this mess was the Supreme Court putting itself into a situation where it's regularly making momentous political…

It seems like they are trying to step back with this (and force the regulators to have law as well).

Given the horrifically vitriolic hate-filled partisan crap-fest we are in - it is much too late for that.

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

#817

Post by ALotOfBees »

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.

It's funny that you mention Alaska, because they are the #1 overall state when it comes to Senate and Electoral College "voter power". As you said, they get the same Senate representation despite having a fraction of the population of NJ. In addition, each vote cast in Alaska counts far more towards the presidential election than a vote in NJ does.

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

#818

Post by willcipriano »

landryraccoon wrote: post #792
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,…

I find this argument very unconvincing. To use an engineering analogy, if the government were a software application, this is very much like a senior engineer going on a major refactor of a production system, causing huge breaking changes for the sake of "principles", without consulting product, CS or QA. For the sake of argument, lets grant that there's some force to those principles. Is that justification for sudde…

> this is very much like a senior engineer going on a major refactor of a production system, causing huge breaking changes for the sake of "principles"

That's what the people with the creative interpretations on the constitution did. This is restoring to a previous commit before that happened.

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

#819

Post by lolinder »

landryraccoon wrote: post #792
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,…

I find this argument very unconvincing. To use an engineering analogy, if the government were a software application, this is very much like a senior engineer going on a major refactor of a production system, causing huge breaking changes for the sake of "principles", without consulting product, CS or QA. For the sake of argument, lets grant that there's some force to those principles. Is that justification for sudde…

We're not a software shop, we're a country that has deep, systemic problems with executive overreach and abuse. Analogizing to a company producing banal software trivializes the extent of the problems we're facing and abstracts away a lot of real concerns into fungible "features".

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

#820

Post by spencerflem »

ironman1478 wrote: post #788
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 i…

I just find it sad, because even Reddit got this one right. This is the most SCOTUS bootlicking ive seen in one thread and it's all done by programmers who are supposed to be my people y'know? Feels personal
Post reply on HN