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

851–860 of 1001 posts

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

#851

Post by muaytimbo »

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,…

Totally agree with this, the US has turned into an administrative state, which is far from the vision enacted by the founding fathers in which Congress and/or states regulate. Today congress has chosen to forsake their main role as legislators by creating unelected unaccountable bureaucrats with, essentially, unchecked law making abilities.

That said, I would like congress to take up the matter of clean air and water directly, instead of this cowering behind other agencies after abdicating of their duties.

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

#852

Post by baggy_trough »

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?

Nothing whatsoever. That's why most of what the federal government does is unlawful.

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

#853

Post by InTheArena »

outsidetheparty wrote: post #146
Ekaros wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do, they just need to make laws that EPA can enforce. Not let EPA to act on its own. Isn't everyone always talking about unelected burecrauts going against the will of the people?

Not everyone. The phrase "unelected bureaucrats" is almost exclusively a Republican talking point in US politics, used when they want deregulation of exactly this sort.

It's the usual attack on anyone who isn't in power at the particular moment.

For example, I am hearing a awful lot of complaints about un-elected judges this week.

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

#854

Post by maxsilver »

spencerflem wrote: post #820
ironman1478 wrote: post #788

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

> 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

If there's one thing I've learned in my life, is that a scary-high number of people who are supposed to be on my side, who are theoretically my people, are diametrically opposed to my entire life, and are merely pretending to tolerate my continued existence.

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

#855

Post by mcbrit »

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…

It is well known that there are competing, consistent theories on how to interpret the Constitution.

If we assume that each Justice subscribes to a consistent theory on how to interpret the Constitution, you omit a discussion (much less a proof) that at least one Justice's theory is 'partisan', that the theory being partisan would be bad, or to make a foundational move, that a theory that is nonpartisan exists. I think there are interesting discussions to be had on all of those topics.

I think your post is too strongly worded, being a triple attack on the hn community, the Supreme Court, and the state of American politics.

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

#856

Post by InTheArena »

ohboii20202 wrote: post #80

It's time to de-sanctify the Supreme Court. I really don't like having this unelected councils of wizards who get wield god-like "authority"-- it feels a bit gross in a democracy. I 'get it' w/ respect BrownvBoard, Miranda, etc, but at least in my lifetime the court hasn't done much to expand or protect my rights. Greatest hits from them are weird election cases (Florida 2000) making it easier for really shadowy/fuck…

Add to that list - Ferguson, Korematsu, Dredd Scott. You can keep going.

Ironically, I think you are agreeing with the court right now - They don't want the power that the court has previously taken.

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

#857

Post by cronix »

spencerflem wrote: post #820
ironman1478 wrote: post #788

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

That's odd that you think programmers all think the same things or are all politically aligned, or really any group of people for that matter.

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

#858

Post by willcipriano »

citilife wrote: post #847
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…

> it's clear democracy is dying. 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 i…

Yeah but how do I get people in other communities to live how I would prefer them to?

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

#859

Post by InTheArena »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #144
ohboii20202 wrote: post #80

It's time to de-sanctify the Supreme Court. I really don't like having this unelected councils of wizards who get wield god-like "authority"-- it feels a bit gross in a democracy. I 'get it' w/ respect BrownvBoard, Miranda, etc, but at least in my lifetime the court hasn't done much to expand or protect my rights. Greatest hits from them are weird election cases (Florida 2000) making it easier for really shadowy/fuck…

"I really don't like having this unelected councils of wizards who get wield god-like "authority"-- it feels a bit gross in a democracy." So you feel the Cabinet posts should also be elected positions?

YES.

Start with the Secretary of the Treasury and move on to the Secretary of Defense and HHS.

The sooner the better.

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

#860

Post by coffeemug »

scarface74 wrote: post #730
philwelch wrote: post #679

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.

If you ignore that whole “gerrymandering is okay”. Thomas wants to revisit a lot of rulings like the one that gave gay people to right to get married. But I bet he won’t revisit “Loving vs Virginia”.

Scalia described how to handle these cases very clearly. If the court overreached but there is broad consensus on the issue, it’s water under the bridge. If the issue is still controversial, it’s fair game. Nobody thinks we should revisit interracial marriage, and so under this interpretation it won’t be revisited.
Post reply on HN