Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

Others would say they are implementing the details of broad brushed Congressional laws.

As opposed to shaky electoral/gerrymandering grounds

When contradictory evidence or arguments are present, it's easy to pick those that support your predetermined position and ignore those that don't. It's nothing to be proud of, and in fact it's usually considered shameful. In formal debate it's a sure route to an ignominious loss. Parallel construction is the equivalent in the legal world, and equally condemned. It's when the prosecution comes into possession of evidence illegally, and then makes up an alternative provenance or reasoning because admitting the truth would get their case summarily thrown out.

This is what the conservative wing of the supreme court has been doing. They're picking and choosing, highlighting pretty dubious arguments and ignoring those which its own principles (e.g. judicial restraint, stare decisis) would give more weight. It's even more despicable for them than it is for prosecutors. Anyone who praises the "consistency" of this decision is at best falling for the trick, or just as often repeating it themselves because the decision supports a view they held long before they ever heard of this case. This discussion is full of such motivated reasoning, as most here are, and I'm pretty sure that's the cause of parent's contempt. If this is truly supposed to be hacker news full of curious people and not just another political rag disguised as a tech-news site, you all need to do better.

* It only quotes one legal expert, Hajin Kim, who paints the ruling in a negative light. There are no quotes from any other legal expert with a differing viewpoint.

* It quotes from the environmental defense fund, which is on the spectrum as extremely leftwing: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-environmental-defense-fund...

* It puts high priority towards telling us how the feelings of environmental groups got hurt: "Environmental groups will be deeply concerned by the outcome as historically the 19 states that brought the case have made little progress on reducing their emissions - which is necessary to limit climate change."

* It quotes from a U.N. official, which is of course only going to have negative things to say about it. The U.N. could care less about whether a policy hurts America. The BBC also fails to mention how similar policies in the EU have led to more dependence on Russian oil, which was absolutely disastrous in hindsight. Don't knock out your current energy infrastructure when you have nothing to replace it with.

* The BBC focuses on what it perceives as the Supreme court bucking decades of precedent: "For decades, the Supreme Court has held that judges should generally defer to government agencies when interpreting federal law."

* The BBC says absolutely nothing about how the other side feels about this ruling, another major sign of their bias. Take a look at a conservative source: https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-rules-against-b...

“We joined WV to fight the EPA’s overreach & challenged the agency’s overly-broad interpretation allowing them to regulate almost any part of the economy, the consequences would lead to higher utility bills, job loss and overall increased energy prices. This is a huge win for MO!”

“This is a big victory for small businesses and a big defeat for the Biden administration and the regulatory state,” Ortiz said in a statement provided to The Daily Wire. “Whether it’s greenhouse gas emissions, Covid lockdowns, vaccine mandates, or scores of other issues, the Biden administration keeps claiming authority it does not possess, as the Supreme Court ruled today.”

The BBC doesn't care at all about the sheer economic damage that would have been dealt to the relevant states. The BBC also doesn't care at all about the fact that the federal bureaucracy has grown staggeringly in size and power over the past decades, or what that means for our constitutional republic. The BBC doesn't care that our courts have been ruling very much for the left for the past several decades and we are just starting to see a reversal back towards the center. And that's fine. The BBC is in Britain and shouldn't be expected to care about these things. But please don't pretend they are not left-biased on this issue.