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

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911

Post by iostream24 »

extheat wrote: post #612
fzeroracer wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do y'all not consider how the EPA came into being in the first place? It exists because a previous congress did do something and delegated their authority for a very specific reason. Like it was a joint effort between Republicans and Democrats even. What this Supreme Court has decided to do is say that what they did doesn't matter, knowing that the current makeup in congress is in gridlock due to how modern day Repub…

Congress has to be explicit with what powers they delegate. They can’t just say “do whatever you want to fix this problem”. Neither does it say that in the law. It’s not the job of SCOTUS to give you the outcome you want. It’s to rule on what the law does say and is constitutionally acceptable.

Congress granted the EPA power to regulate air pollution. CO2 and methane are harmful pollutants that cause a greenhouse effect, and the EPA was granted the authority to address this. Our activist extremely biased Supreme Court has several members who are part of a political advocacy operation called the federalist society and ensures that members get Supreme Court placement specifically to achieve federalist society goals. Nothing about this is secret. Nothing about this is acceptable

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

#912

Post by iostream24 »

InTheArena wrote: post #849
clukic wrote: post #155

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…

So pass a law, giving them more power to regulate things that you previously didn't give them power to do. Don't throw out democracy to do so.

Congress granted the EPA power to address this, that the Supreme Court has now taken away in their extremely partisan fashion.

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

#913

Post by 30944836 »

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,…

>because I agree with the Court that Congress never intended to grant the EPA that authority.

Luckily nothing stops Congress from making laws that clarify what they granted the EPA. If they were so fussed with the EPA doing what they were doing, why didn't they leap up and pass a law that told them to stop?

Why is it the court's job to tell congress what they meant to say? Is congress mute?

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

#914

Post by jhgb »

carabiner wrote: post #862
rayiner wrote: post #306

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?

Engineering woo effect, perhaps? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Engineers_and_woo

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

#915

Post by dan_quixote »

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,…

>police, FBI, NSA, ICE, or EPA--should not have the ability to creatively interpret laws

That's simply not possible unless we have literal laws for every possible infraction - like a state machine for the human condition.

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

#916

Post by gnicholas »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #173
Miner49er wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is correct. Congress can definitely delegate its power, they are just saying that Congress didn't delegate the power the EPA is trying to use in this case. From the final paragraph of the opinion: "But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an…

How do you write an entire opinion about delegation without mentioning Chevron ? As the dissent points out, that delegation is inherently required to do the EPA's job and the court has previously accepted their technical and policy expertise in this area.

The Court has been dodging Chevron of late. This is their second opinion this month where they conspicuously avoided mentioning Chevron: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/court-side-steps-overturni...

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

#917

Post by zajio1am »

voisin wrote: post #182
elmerfud wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree it will be chaos. Congress has for far too long abdicated what it is supposed to be directly responsible for to unelected bureaucrats that exist in agencies that are overseen by the executive branch of government. Congress is now free to focused on creating chaos between the people that elect them. When is the last time you've seen anyone from Congress campaign on any substantive issue? I've not seen it…

Many of those unelected bureaucrats are experts in their fields due to their ability to focus for entire careers.

So they should prepare law novelization for cabinet, cabinet should push it to legislature, and legislature should vote on that. Like in any other country.

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

#918

Post by OrvalWintermute »

csdvrx wrote: post #773
lolinder wrote: post #757

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 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. Totally: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justificati... "Lawyers for the Obama administration, arguing for their ability to kill an American citizen without trial in Yemen, contended t…

Although I think that terrorists in general should be denied Geneva Conventions and protections, I do think there should have been a judicial process to determine, and make the case for said terrorist (Anwar al-Awlaki) being an enemy of the state, and an authorized target. Then, through an adversarial process, he would have had his day in court, along with all of the rights of appeal that come with a judicial decision.

I cringe sometime when I think about the potential burden of evidence not being brought forth to make a case that someone is a terrorist, and then getting droned.

> I don't want the executive or the administration to use creative interpretations to allow themselves to legally become judge, jury and executioner through executive order (pun intended) that may be very hard to claw back. The constitution and the supreme court are here for a good reason: to prevent such abuses.

Well said.

One man's freedom fighter, or terrorist, could one day become, one's political adversary.

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

#919

Post by datavirtue »

muaytimbo wrote: post #851
lolinder wrote: post #757

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…

Then they would have to tackle financial regulation reform, and that isn't in the interests of anyone in Washington or Wall Street---and likely not within their wheelhouse of competence. The fed and various people throughout the financial industry and private citizens have been begging for specific regulations for decades now.

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

#920

Post by s1artibartfast »

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

I personally like the Roe standard, but it was made out whole cloth constitutionally.
Post reply on HN