841–850 of 1001 posts
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…
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…
> On the other hand, if you read liberal dissents, they’re mostly about what they think appropriate policy should be.
The Supreme Court is not supposed to set policy. It's only supposed to rule on if the policy set by others (Congress) is constitutional or not.
If the EPA could do anthing to stop emmisions, banning power plants from existing at all would satisfy "do anything to stop emmisions", so would "depopulating the planet" (no people, no need for power plants). Those seems like they make it pretty clear they need specific limits. They were given specific limits. The court confirmed that.
Congress needs to increase what they're allowed to regulate and how if they want more power. It's frustrating that that's so hard to come by but it's hard to imagine how else it could be
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much by definition whatever decision a court takes, someone will be disappointed. Otherwise we wouldn't need courts.
I just want my court to be consistent with multi-decade precedent and not dramatically pivot when the composition changes.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of justices on the current Supreme Court have been doing a good job of sticking to the law rather than attempting to enact policy. What you’re describing is a good criticism of the mid-20th century Supreme Court, but the current Court has done a good job of rolling back those excesses.
So flip the entire thing and say Congress and the presidency were hyper-progressive. Do you not think this court would use the constitution to strike down their laws (say universal healthcare or something)? They are only rolling back these excesses because it fits their ideology.
They upheld Obamacare again just last year.
> They are only rolling back these excesses because it fits their ideology.
This is just liberal projection. Liberal justices almost always vote as a unified bloc on major cases based on the results. It's always the conservative justices that go wobbly: Thomas voting against federal marijuana prohibition, Roberts repeatedly voting to uphold Obamacare, Roberts opposing overtrning Roe, Kennedy finding that the Constitution protects same-sex marriage, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh finding that the Civil Rights Act protects sexual orientation, etc.
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
I spent a few years researching all viewpoints to figure out my position. Didn't realize I would be hated for thinking for myself.
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…
The united states has never been a democracy. The united states was designed with a state being a nation, each nation joined a federation (the united states). This is similar to the EU (they're following the same model).
Your local governments still have WAY more power over your life than the federal government. Think about your daily life, when you drive do you worry about speeding in town? If you do, that's because your local government. Local taxes, approvals for construction, education, health services, power, etc is all decided locally.
Local governments are decided within a community, they can ignore federal laws. Local officials are decided via a democratic way, direct votes. IMO that's actually becoming stronger, as the federal government weakens, it returns the power to where it belongs people and local government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, fixing that problem -- the problem of the ineffectiveness and hyper-partisanship of Congress -- would have so many positive effects for all of our lives regardless of our ideological perspectives that it should be our number one priority as the electorate.
Eliminating partisan gerrymandering would go a long way. Less than 10% of congressional districts this year will be competitive (defined as the most recent presidential election margin was within 10 percentage points). Only 41 seats! I haven’t really seen a realistic plan to do it though.
The EPA was created to empower experts to make informed decisions with the goal of benefiting the public good. The science of regulating pollutants is hard, and neither our representatives nor the voters who elect them and ultimately hold them accountable should be expected to develop that expertise. The vested interests who benefit from the fossil fuel industry control the flow of information to our representatives…
Don't throw out democracy to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn?wprov=sfla1