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

891–900 of 1001 posts

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

#891

Post by iostream24 »

robonerd wrote: post #810
Spooky23 wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, whatever. These guys are great at espousing some high minded principle that happens to fit into whatever the desired outcome happens to be. These reactionaries represent the dead hand of a generation of people who control or seek to control to guide society to meet their own generational/dynastic wealth and power goals. I’m sure you’ll feel differently as the assaults on the 14th amendment continue and things l…

If recent SCOTUS decisions are a dead generation reaching out of the grave to get their way in the end against the united consensus of the living, then the living should have no trouble sorting Congress out and getting the right laws and amendments passed the proper way. Of course, the truth is that living generations are not nearly so united against this as you seem to be suggesting. There certainly isn't enough con…

The whole concept of a corporate fourth estate informing a populace how to vote contrary to their own interests is surely a major problem our founders weren’t considering very heavily, given the media of the time.

I can’t imagine the World War generations silently watching Tucker give aid and comfort to Putin either…

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

#892

Post by fullstackchris »

robonerd wrote: post #772
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. If democracy died every time somebody got mad at the outcomes and made claims like that, it would have been dead before it even started, and subsequently re-died every year since. What exactly was so democractic about SCOTUS permitting the executive branch to write their own laws anyway? Writing laws is meant to be the job of Congress. You can claim Congress is insufficiently democrat…

Regardless, you can't ignore the far reaching affects of Trump as president and January 6th. Was it just a "phase"? Perhaps. But any scenario I can think of leads to more of this boneheaded nonsense. You can't simply say 'bah people disagreeing is not the end of democracy' and be done with it. The statistics are there; the US is far more polarized and contentious than it ever was before.

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

#893

Post by [deleted] »

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,…

[deleted]

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

#894

Post by ohCh6zos »

thesiniot wrote: post #216
JohnHaugeland wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We managed for hundreds of years.

That was before the Senate hijacked the normal nomination process in 2016. The court has been an illegitimate and partisan body ever since Garland's seat was denied.

The process was hijacked long before 2016. See "Borking".

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

#895

Post by Sakos »

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 feel like people don't actually realize what the consequences of this will really be.

https://today.law.harvard.edu/scotus-preview-west-virginia-v...

> “Supporters of the major questions doctrine would characterize this as taking power away from agencies and giving it to Congress, because they would say Congress is democratically accountable, and therefore should be making the major policy decisions,” says Goho. “Critics would say, ‘No, what’s happening is you’re taking power away from agencies, which have some degree of democratic accountability to the president, and you are actually granting the power to the courts, which are not democratically accountable at all.’”

This is the first step in dismantling regulatory bodies on a federal level. I have no idea how people can be supportive of the decision. It seems insane to me.

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

#896

Post by iostream24 »

It’s very frustrating to see how some HN readers are allowed to vote others comments up and down while the rest of us have no rights at all. It feels like when a playground bully puts their long arm on your forehead to prevent you being able to reach them, while they are free to punch you and abuse you at will. Unfair

I already heard the excuse about a probationary period but I’ve been stuck in this state for awhile now and it’s not OK

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

#897

Post by deelowe »

xpe wrote: post #231
deelowe wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Wedge issues. I'm glad the SC is trying to force congress to do its job. If only someone would do something about executive orders, we may make some real progress.

You sound very naive. There is a long history and philosophy around the proper roles and relationships of a legislature and court such as SCOTUS. The current Court could claim to make decisions upon a strict originalist philosophy of jurisprudence. Maybe they think they do, and maybe they really do. But... Take an open-eyed look at history. Look at the process by which the justices are selected. This shows a differen…

And you sound like a one party voter.

I don't care the motivation. The SC shouldn't be doing congress' job. Congress got burned because they've been complacent.

RvW has always stood on tenuous footing. We've known this. Congress has literally had decades to do something and they chose instead to keep the status quo. Why? Because the republican threat helps democrat voter turnout. Same reason nothing is being done about the failed drug war.

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

#898

Post by SllX »

rat87 wrote: post #698
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.

Have you seen the Dobbs decision? It's about what policies the judges personally prefer

The one that returns the decision to make policy on a controversial subject matter back to the people and their elected representatives, per the opinion of the Court?

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

#899

Post by iostream24 »

egg1 wrote: post #648
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.

Seriously, if just a fraction of "intellectuals" in other fields took some time to read the past 50-odd years worth of Supreme Court rulings, there wouldn't be all this pointless bickering over basic facts. If anything, the Warren/Burger courts were egregious in making up constitutional rights out of thin air based on their moral beliefs, and not the letter of the law. It's a shame that it takes a far-right Supreme C…

You clearly have a political bias.

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

#900

Post by danielmarkbruce »

Sakos wrote: post #895
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 feel like people don't actually realize what the consequences of this will really be. https://today.law.harvard.edu/scotus-preview-west-virginia-v... > “Supporters of the major questions doctrine would characterize this as taking power away from agencies and giving it to Congress, because they would say Congress is democratically accountable, and therefore should be making the major policy decisions,” says Goho. “C…

It might not be a good idea, but google search will turn up the logic behind opposition to the power of the regulatory agencies.
Post reply on HN