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

821–830 of 1001 posts

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

#821

Post by MaxLeiter »

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 :)

I think its quite fair for people to be upset about multiple justices lying about Roe being settled law.

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

#822

Post by tick_tock_tick »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #141
biggieshellz wrote: post #6

Major questions doctrine. They ruled that the current law does not empower EPA to require producers to shift generation to different methods (e.g. natural gas, renewables), and that if Congress had meant for the law to do that, they would have written it explicitly. Congress can still pass a law empowering EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

> Congress can still pass a law empowering EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Congress gave the EPA broad discretion that it could have revoked -- using your argument -- at any moment. This issue has been bouncing around for over a decade, and Congress has systematically declined to do so.

That's a horrible argument. The Executive branch should never had default allow permissions for anything. The amount of mental gymnastic many of our current regulator bodies have used to claim more authority is already obscene.

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

#823

Post by car_analogy »

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…

> The feds argued that growing a plan is participating in interstate commerce. This law will stand

That's not guaranteed. Has it been challenged?

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

#824

Post by citilife »

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…

There's a lot on this site that makes me question "what happened"?

Growing up on the internet (IRC, Forums, eventually HN, etc) there was always a "hacker" or "libertarian" spirit. Less government ("the man"), less regulation, more freedom, more ability to create and inspire.

Now, I see many people (often the same people) seemingly become hyper partisian when the Supreme Court saying "congress never authorized this, they'd need to to make this legal". All the recent court rulings have been very consistent that "the will of the people (congress) never approved this".

IMO you're correct, the Supreme court is partisan. However, this feels far less partisan than normal and the reasoning seems to be sound (congress never implemented this law / passed an amendment / etc). In the courts opinions will often explain how to make it a law / legal.

The shock I've experienced with the HN community is how it's been far less thoughtful as late (3-4 years) and discussions are suppressed / devolve quickly. The idea of the libertarian ethos of the "hacker" community, to me, appears dead. Now, I see a far less thoughtful, more partisan, more angry community. Even in your comment, you mention you "hate" the community (I'm assuming you mean just parts of it). It dismays me.

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

#825

Post by rayiner »

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…

Democrats need to shake this notion that Republicans represent "minority rule" because it both delegitimizes our institutions and goads Democrats into overplaying their hand. Republicans won almost 1.5 million more total votes in 2016 for the House, the country's primary law-making body: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_Re.... They are on pace to win the House again in 2022 by millions of votes, like they did in 2010: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/generic-ballot.

Features like the Electoral College can lead to different incentives in close elections, but even that does not systematically favor Republicans. As recently as 2012, the Electoral College favored Democrats. Obama would have won in 2012 even if he had lost the popular vote: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/did-democrats-get-lucky... ("President Obama won the Electoral College fairly decisively last year despite a margin of just 3.8 percentage points in the national popular vote. In fact, Mr. Obama would probably have won the Electoral College even if the popular vote had slightly favored Mitt Romney.")

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

#826

Post by jxramos »

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 think the name of the game is at the level of upholding consistent logic in and of itself but of defending the separation of powers granted to the three branches of government. You can think of it as analogous to programming architectural defensive tests enforcing the boundaries. This is at the level of governance design and protecting that design.

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

#827

Post by WalterBright »

remarkEon wrote: post #688
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…

Indeed, the reaction to this from lawmakers is really perplexing. They're claiming that the Court is "rogue" or something, but if you actually read what they wrote they are returning power from the executive to congress (or making it clear that Congress always had this power, not the executive). The reaction makes me think there are many lawmakers who are rather uninterested in making laws, and instead actually do wa…

If lawmakers leave the legislation to the Court, they can't be blamed for the outcome, and they remain free to grandstand for the cameras.

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

#828

Post by dahfizz »

scarmig wrote: post #809
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 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…

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

That's entirely incorrect, please read the article.

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

#829

Post by rayiner »

philosopher1234 wrote: post #733
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…

>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 claim they have never done this. That every ruling has had an eye towards the outcome, whether stated or unstated, and that when they claim to be acting as mechanistic evaluators they are attempting to hide their interest in the effect they're…

> Besides, its a terrible idea. The real effects of their rulings matter much more than the philosophy.

If that's your view, then we should just abolish courts. What's the point of having unelected legislators?

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

#830

Post by lolinder »

scarmig wrote: post #809
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 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…

From the end of the ruling (emphasis added) [0]:

> Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible "solution to the crisis of the day." But it is not plausible that Congress gave the EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.

It seems pretty clear that Congress does have the authority to delegate, but that the Court ruled that Congress didn't intend to do so. This ruling places the ball firmly in Congress's court, it doesn't rule that Congress cannot act.

[0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

Post reply on HN