Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

bbc.com

831–840 of 1001 posts

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

#831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about giving power back to the states, and in turn the people. So a state and its people would have the power to decide on something like abortion rather than a single centralized leviathan-authority.

> power back to the states, and in turn the people That sounds quite Stalinist. The people are not the state. > So a state and its people would have the power to decide on something like abortion rather than a single centralized leviathan-authority. Right, so your federal government is a centralised Hobbesian leviathan, but state government is not? How is state government not centralised? It's just centralised at a d…

On the particular of abortion, in terms of liberty, the baby's liberty must be considered, not only the mother's.

In the general case of state vs federal sovereignty, state sovereignty is closer to the individual is and more malleable/escapable than a federal sovereign, and is thus preferable (state sovereignty was the original ideal of the United States and the founders go on at length about the benefits of this arrangement.)

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

#832

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

This is objectively false, the supreme court just ruled that. Like it or not, they are the sole authority on said issues / decisions.

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

#833
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People are powerless to do anything unless 100% of them vote I'm not following this logic? Why do we need 100% of people to vote? I assume you mean to "oust ineffective elected officials" but I suspect that there are many people that don't vote because they are "happy" and don't feel at risk of their desired official being outed. But again, I might be off base. Hoping you can clarify more of what you meant.

Most of the public cares about climate change and wants the government to do something. The overwhelming majority of the public supports abortion in some form or other. If they actually voted maybe we could change things, but lots of people just don't vote. Having participated in several cycles of political organizing, the actual ground game is Get Out The Vote (GOTV): not trying to get people to change their minds,…

> Most of the public cares about climate change and wants the government to do something

Most of the public cares about climate change and wants the government to do something so long as it doesn't cost them anything (Or more precisely, more than 10 $/mo)[0]. Or you can just see the consternation about gas prices right now to predict how well any climate change related regulation that actually materially affected carbon production would go.

[0]: https://apnorc.org/projects/what-americans-think-about-the-e...

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

#834

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. 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

Being a programmer only implies one thing. That the person is a programmer. It has 0 correlation with other skills or thoughts. I used to be disappointed by this too, but people are multifaceted and being able to make a computer do something useful isn't correlated with being able to understand politics, be good at playing an instrument, etc. The people who are good at multiple things (or knowledgeable about multiple topics) are that way because they put in the work, just like they did for programming.

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

#835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's your argument, then surely the proper approach is to criticize the Court for those instances where their logic isn't consistent, instead of when the logic is consistent. For example, Thomas vigorously dissented in Gonzales v. Raich , where Scalia voted to uphold federal marijuana restrictions as a proper exercise of the Commerce power. There is nothing wrong with judges having an "agenda" as long as that ag…

It's interesting that you are bringing the conversation back to consistency when I explicitly said my POV is that consistency (here) is a red herring.

How can consistency possibly be a "red herring" when talking about judicial decisions?

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

#836

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.

No it’s not.

/s

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

#838

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 "tr…

Yes I agree, I think its a universal human quality.

And I think we should start talking about abortion directly, not through 50 layers of legaleze.

The only way a pro-lifer on HN can express their opinion is indirectly, through technical criticism.

But why can't they express their pro life opinion directly? Because people will disagree with them? The only thing people do on HN is disagree.

This is the issue that needs exploring, not the intricacies of judicial logic.

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

#839

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…

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.

Your positivist legal philosophy is not shared by the Roberts Court.

> it’s not hard to see that the executive branch took action that the legislative branch never gave them

The dissenting opinion explicitly argues that Congress did explicitly grant the Executive to explicitly regulate GHG emissions, both the manner and the amount.

"The limits the majority now puts on EPA’s authority fly in the face of the statute Congress wrote. The majority says it is simply “not plausible” that Congress enabled EPA to regulate power plants’ emissions through generation shifting. Ante, at 31. But that is just what Congress did when it broadly authorized EPA in Section 111 to select the “best system of emission reduction” for power plants. The “best system” full stop—no ifs, ands, or buts of any kind relevant here. The parties do not dispute that generation shifting is indeed the “best system” the most effective and efficient way to reduce power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. And no other provision in the Clean Air Act suggests that Congress meant to foreclose EPA from selecting that system; to the contrary, the Plan’s regulatory approach fits hand-in-glove with the rest of the statute. The majority’s decision rests on one claim alone: that generation shifting is just too new and too big a deal for Congress to have authorized it in Section 111’s general terms. But that is wrong. A key reason Congress makes broad delegations like Section 111 is so an agency can respond, appropriately and commensurately, to new and big problems. Congress knows what it doesn’t and can’t know when it drafts a statute; and Congress therefore gives an expert agency the power to address issues—even significant ones—as and when they arise. That is what Congress did in enacting Section 111. The majority today overrides that legislative choice. In so doing, it deprives EPA of the power needed—and the power granted—to curb the emission of greenhouse gases."

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

#840

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…

For EPA. Court took power away from unelected bureaucrats and gave it back to elected officials.

For Row. Court took power away from itself and gave it back to elected officials.

You can vote for those elected officials. This is democracy working as intended.

Post reply on HN