Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

bbc.com

881–890 of 1001 posts

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

#881

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,…

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…

>>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.

Exactly - put them on the record voting for or against whatever they want - and the voters can vote to replace or keep those people based on how they actually voted - right now they all like to give speeches, raise money and not much else - congress, do your job, even if it costs you your job.

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

#882

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…

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 vo…

And I'm sure no one is disenfranchised by feeling their vote doesn't "count" or matter due to gerrymandering. /s

> As recently as 2012, the Electoral College favored Democrats. Obama would have won in 2012 even if he had lost the popular vote

Except he didn't lose the popular vote. That "honor" is reserved for the last 2 republican presidents (2000 & 2016)

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

#883

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.

What's reactionary about applying checks and balances?

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

#884

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…

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 vo…

> Republicans won almost 1.5 million more total votes in 2016 for the House, the country's primary law-making body

Cherry-picked stats are banal.

Democrats won almost 5 million more votes in the CURRENT election, which is more than the entire population of Mississippi and West Virginia combined. That's why it's not unfair to claim a "minority rule" at play.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_House_of_Re...

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_pop...

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

#885

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for saying this, i completly agree. It honestly makes me ashamed to be a programmer associating with this type of person whos completely incapable of understanding even the simplest social issue

Intelligent people can disagree on abortion, gay marriage, gun control, and other issues. People on both sides of these issues can understand them but reach different conclusions based on their values.

[deleted]

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

#886
People use idealism to justify decisions that would only be useful in an ideal world, but are terrifying in the real world. This comment thread is a good case study.

Sure, maybe, in an ideal world we want congress to pass laws in the place of every single regulatory body. (This in and of itself is totally unclear to me).

However, the reality is that by getting rid of regulatory agencies we prevent important limits from being enforced.

I mean, read this part of the dissent: > Again, Section 111(d) tells EPA that when a pollutant—like carbon dioxide—is not regulated through other programs, EPA must undertake a further regulatory effort to control that substance’s emission from existing stationary sources.

There's a backstop in place to allow the EPA to prevent pollutants from fucking us up. Ideally it would be regulated through a formal program. It's not. Does that mean we should just get rid of all backstops & regress to the stone age?

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

#887

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…

That is incorrect. Congress cannot broadly delegate authority to make rules with the force of law on the executive branch. Even liberals begrudgingly accept separation of powers.

Regulatory agencies exist based on the theory that Congress can leave it to agencies to "fill in the details" of a law as part of the executive discretion about how to enforce the law. In the Clean Air Act, Congress gave the EPA authority to pick toxic pollutants to regulate, and to specify the use of particular emissions control technologies like scrubbers.

What this case was about was whether this grant of authority could be fairly read to encompass telling entire industries what power generation mix they must use.

This is not like requiring the CEO to sign off on a minor bug fix. The reasoning of the Court is that industry-wide changes in power generation mix have sweeping effects on the country, and require specific authorization. Even huge companies routinely require executive approval for major new initiatives that will incur major costs to the company.

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

#888

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…

More specifically, the dissenting opinion argues that the right to abortion logically follows from all the prior rights granted to women, eg own property, voting, divorce.

That's not how law works

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

#889

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…

Why does HN, or SWEs in general, have a libertarian / small govt bias?

Because everyone here is a phony.

Everyone publicly wants socialism, and privately wants to protect their own assets.

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

#890

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…

Maybe you played hooky in Civics 101, or maybe not, but your understanding and analogy both require substantial correction.

Fixing this:

If the government were a software application, this is very much like a project led by three senior engineers for a system using a widely agreed upon Design that was flexible, but included boundaries. This consisted of Four major elements: (1) Codified Business Decisions, (2) Execution Environment, that mainly ran the project management, and the security (3) The Business Representatives, who created new Business Decisions, and a (4) User Community who ultimately controlled all of above, and paid all of the bills. The first three major elements regularly jockeyed for control over the software app. Over time, they deviated from the initial Design in ways that favored themselves and made the environment less favorable for the User Community. Business Decisions started to critique, and invent new business decisions out of thin air. Execution Environment tried to take over everything in spite of the agreed-upon Design, and existing Business Decisions. Even the Business Representatives went off the rails to favor the consultants that were treating them to fancy dinners instead of the business units they were sent to represent, and they started to define the future roadmap to include proprietary functionality, written by the consultants. But, the consultants also tried to subvert Codified Business Decisions and Execution Environment.

Over time, the User Community took actions to correct some of the most egregious errors by the Codified Business Decisions senior engineer that violated the original, as-modified Design. He did not receive an engineering change proposal that was funded and vetted by the Business Representatives, nope, he was just a cowboy. Through influence, they were able to impact the hiring of the newest crop of Senior Engineers, and revisit past errors. The new senior engineer in Codified Business Decisions revisited some of the decisions the User community claimed was encroaching. Codified Business Decisions finally stated that would undo what they determined was a bridge too far in a business decision that the Business Representatives had never supported broadly, and had never received agreement. They prioritized it as a fix in the sprint, and then pushed it. The fix came out, and the consultant class declared war. They'd been enriching themselves at the expense of the User Community for a long time. In a related topic, another member of the consultant class was caught by Execution Environment rentacops trying to assassinate a junior member of the Business Decisions Engineering Staff, for a similar decision with which the consultants disagreed. Other consultants declared they would kill off all the junior members of the Business Decisions group.

Post reply on HN