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

901–910 of 1001 posts

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

#901

Post by nostromo »

iostream24 wrote: post #861
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.

I strongly disagree. I see this current court having extremely low legitimacy engaged in naked power grabs: In one session they’ve removed the ability to sue over Miranda rights, stricken down a fifty year precedent and told a state that they can’t enact their own concealed carry act. I don’t doubt that you will claim that these actions are the logical course of originalism in its purest form, but I find it judicial…

Naked power grabs?

Most of the decisions reduce the power of the executive and the court itself and give power to the congress and states.

I might agree with you if they made abortion illegal nationally. But they didn’t - they said it’s up to the voters and their representatives.

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

#902

Post by iostream24 »

InTheArena wrote: post #811
scottLobster wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the quality of the conversation on Reddit (top-voted memes calling Justice Barrett a handmaiden and so forth), HN is still a cut above :)

Reddit is beyond toxic at the moment.

This place is more unfriendly, to be honest, as we get more knives in the back than frontal assaults, which are fairly easy to fend off or disconnect from. I can at least up and down vote comments on Reddit. Here I just get greyed out and can’t hit back

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

#903

Post by iostream24 »

Spivak wrote: post #319
ComputerGuru wrote: post #221

PDF of the ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf As usual, it’s more nuanced than the headline.

Nobody in the comments is saying that the Supreme Court is wrong in the sense that the logic doesn’t follow. Of course it’s nuanced and up to interpretation, that’s why most decisions are split — and usually split on “conservative (do what I say) and liberal (do what I mean). The reason people are mad is because the court is relitigating long settled cases which breaks the main principle of the court which is don’t b…

This is one of the most reasonable comments I’ve read today, and yet it’s grayed out. That’s not acceptable. HN is being taken over by bullies and I’m tired of not even have my basic comment voting rights.

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

#904

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#905

Post by CptJupiterNorth »

philosopher1234 wrote: post #838
ErikVandeWater wrote: post #815

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 need…

This community isn't what I thought it was, either. I'm new to commenting, and my account has negative karma because I said something true that the 2A people didn't like.

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

#906

Post by robonerd »

iostream24 wrote: post #891
robonerd wrote: post #810

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I can see how corporate influence might play a role in this EPA decision, but most of the ire being thrown at SCOTUS recently is about abortion and I don't see any clear corporate pro-life consensus. On the contrary, I expect most corporations want to keep abortion legal to protect their workforce.

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

Yes, the world war generations had trouble with the principle of free speech; for instance, arresting people for protesting the draft during the first world war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States And do I need to remind you of the mass internment of Japanese Americans, convicted of no crimes, during the second world war?

I like to think we've made some progress since then.

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

#907

Post by ohCh6zos »

Seattle3503 wrote: post #784
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…

HN is by and large reactionary.

Being reactionary is a good thing as it preserves the status quo.

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

#908

Post by jrd79 »

Carbon dioxide was not considered a pollutant when the law was passed, so congress should specifically authorize such a significant expansion of the EPA authority. Rule by executive fiat is never wise, and if the case were clear cut on this matter, it would not be so hard to get congress to act. There isn't and never was democratic consensus on this topic, and people who support it need to convince people who do not before it can become public policy.

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

#909

Post by datavirtue »

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…

"A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself..."

Simple. End of story. If the Supreme Court has one job it's punting shit to Congress--the appropriate branch.

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

#910

Post by devwastaken »

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…

Government agencies are comprised of people. The same people that work a desk job they hate. They're not elected, and don't have to demonstrate worth for the position, yet can execute sanctioned harm against individuals That's two major flaws that slaps democracy in the face.

People are dissilusioned by organizations out of their reach that can harm them, and they do not feel they are represented.

Iron Law is the name of the game for long standing organizations. That is, preserve the org first, not complete the mission. When you look into the deep history of federal corruption it's plain as day that it's overwhelmingly a political wheelhouse with only a sprinkle of objective.

Federal agencies that were once founded in earnest are long taken over by this principle. The founders have left the building.

Post reply on HN