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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by trafficante »

specialist wrote: post #839
extheat wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take an overly simplistic view of things then yes every ruling is partisan everywhere. This by itself is not a meaningful insight because all forms of government will be corrupt. The purpose of SCOTUS isn’t to rule based on what the desired outcome is, it’s to rule based on what the law explicitly does say and is permitted to say per the Constitution. I believe if we set aside climate change, for most reasonab…

> The purpose of SCOTUS isn’t to rule based on what the desired outcome is, it’s to rule based on what the law explicitly does say and is permitted to say per the Constitution. Your positivist legal philosophy is not shared by the Roberts Court. > it’s not hard to see that the executive branch took action that the legislative branch never gave them The dissenting opinion explicitly argues that Congress did explicitly…

Despite my being very far to the “left” of the Biden Admin on environmental preservation, Kagan’s quoted dissent actually convinced me this was a sound legal ruling - even if I’m personally unhappy about the issue at hand.

The “best system of emission reduction” from Sec. 7411 is in regards to “standards of practices for new stationary sources” - the definition for a “stationary source” is a few paragraphs down and the broadest it gets is “facility/installation”.

Even if you buy the argument that the regulatory authority expands to the entire grid because the concept of a multi-sourced power grid didn’t exist in the 1970s (which doesn’t pass the smell test tbh), the rest of Sec. 111 makes it absolutely clear that “best system” was intended to be in reference to technological advances/upgrades that would make individual plants/buildings less pollutant.

Forcing a power generation shift from a coal plant to a hydro plant 40 miles away is definitely out of scope for what’s spelled out in the Act and Congress needs to get off their asses if they want the EPA to have that sort of power. And maybe toss in some funding for nuclear while they’re addressing this whole “best system” thing.

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

#942

Post by generj »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #369
boringg wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way in which judges are brought to the bench in America and subsequently to SCOTUS is political. While it isn't Congress it isn't as independent as many people previously portrayed it.

As far as I can tell, the nonsense with Court appointments began back in the 80s, with the campaign against Reagan's nominee Robert Bork. Since then there's been a gradually ramping escalation of hostility from both sides. The GOP had to pay back the DEMs for the Bork thing, the DEMs try to smear Thomas, vetting of nominees is held up, then entirely withheld until the President leaves office, and so forth. The politi…

Bork’s appointment problems stem from Reagan’s essentially rewarding him for obstructing impeachment of Nixon.

I’ve never understood why the Democrats are painted as the bad guys interfering in a non-partisan appointment of Bork. Nominating Bork was an insane act.

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

#943

Post by th3byrdm4n »

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,…

I barely post but here here.

Leveraging the executive branch as the government creates a bipolar governance, every 4-8 years we have a totally different country and outcomes.

We need a functioning legislator.

How we go from here to there is unclear, but necessary

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

#944

Post by lolinder »

30944836 wrote: post #913
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,…

>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?

It is the court's job to ensure the law is enforced as written. Where ambiguity exists, it is the court's job to interpret the law. That's literally the entire purpose of a court.

Congress is not mute. Congress speaks by passing laws. Any other, less formal means of speaking is the voice of members of Congress, not Congress as a whole.

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

#945

Post by xyzzyz »

drewrv wrote: post #711
ceejayoz wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you look at the conservative majority opinions, you’ll find that indeed, it’s about the relevant legal issues, ie. what the law actually says. Qualified immunity and asset forfeiture would like a word.

This term alone the "conservative majority opinions" have been downright contradictory on "relevant legal issues". Women now have a right to defend their life with a gun but cannot defend their life with healthcare. It's clear that they are simply using "originalism" to cherry pick what falls in line with their personal opinions.

> Women now have a right to defend their life with a gun but cannot defend their life with healthcare.

You are just illustrating my exact point. Right to keep and bear arms is explicitly secured in the Constitution that it “shall not be infringed”, whereas nothing of this sort is clearly and explicitly said about abortion rights. Here, again, conservatives focus on what the law actually says, and liberals focus on their preferred policy, and if their preferred policy is not to be clearly and explicitly found in the law, it is instead found in the “emanations of the penumbra”.

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

#946

Post by xyzzyz »

tablespoon wrote: post #682
syrrim wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If congress disagreed with this interpretation, they could pass a law explicitly ruling it out. The power of the supreme court in this regard relies on the fact that congress has great difficulty passing any law at all, and thus whatever interpretation given by the supreme court is likely to persist. >If you look at the conservative majority opinions, you’ll find that indeed, it’s about the relevant legal issues, ie.…

> If congress disagreed with this interpretation, they could pass a law explicitly ruling it out. But that would be backwards and wrong (like a default-allow firewall rule).

In fact, it would be even worse than you say, because it would not be applied in a principled and consistent way. In actual practice, it would be default-allow if convenient, and default-forbid if not.

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

#947

Post by asah »

nooyurrsdey wrote: post #282

Emphasis mine: > The case against the EPA was brought by West Virginia on behalf of 18 other mostly Republican-led states and some of the nation's largest coal companies. > > They were challenging whether the agency has the power to regulate planet-warming emissions for state-wide power sectors or just individual power plants. > > These 19 states were worried their power sectors would be regulated and they would be f…

Easy for us to say, it's not our jobs being lost.

If we really cared about getting this done, we'd simply pay ~$30B/year (0.14%) to enter a contract to buyout 100% of US coal production, and avoid it getting burned.

The problem is that China would simply replace that production, netting zero for the environment.

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

#948

Post by CWuestefeld »

shrimpx wrote: post #436
CWuestefeld wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recent history shows us many examples of SCOTUS saying "the Constitution doesn't let you do this", and people being up in arms crying "but the thing you just struck down is necessary". Folks: it's not within the Court's authority to decide what is a good idea and what is a bad idea. Their sole job is to interpret laws through the lens of the Constitution. The justices may well agree with your wishes of what Congress…

That works in principle but not in practice. The core issue in roe v wade was tossing out precedent while failing to show reasoning why tossing out precedent should be ok. So now the court seems to be chaotic. Whatever the makeup of the court, they may toss out precedent that doesn’t match the current majority’s interpretation of the constitution (of which there are many). Then suppose the scotus becomes a liberal ma…

I agree with your concerns about thrashing. I think that the fact that justices aren't elected politically, together with their typical lengthy tenure, is intended to buffer against that. But as politics becomes more polarized, perhaps the buffer doesn't serve as well anymore.

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

#949

Post by Imnimo »

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,…

It strikes me as extremely naive to believe that this same precedent will be applied to agencies like the FBI and NSA. The supreme court is not an automaton bound by the laws of logic to act consistently.

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

#950

Post by InTheArena »

iostream24 wrote: post #912
InTheArena wrote: post #849

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except they didn't. It doesn't include in the language. Did you read the opinion?
Post reply on HN