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

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961

Post by [deleted] »

mistrial9 wrote: post #697
dfxm12 wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the strategy of the Federalist Society, make rulings via the undemocratic SCOTUS under the guise of giving states/congress power, but then also making sure that state elections are undemocratic via gerrymandering, voting laws, etc. It doesn't help that taking action on matters of national importance is inherently difficult in a Federalist government.

from Wikipedia '... The Federalist Society provides its 70,000 members with "intellectual sparring and professional grooming.' without taking sides on this attorney gang, it seems to be like a bunch of professional boxers and others here are mad because they cannot fight. I do not want to fight lawyers, but calling them a conspiracy, when they specifically engage and practice debate professionally, is sort of patheti…

[deleted]

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

#962

Post by jschveibinz »

jeffbee wrote: post #48
jschveibinz wrote: post #3

TL;DR? My best attempt: The federal law did not give authority to EPA to control the type of energy (fuel) used. It only had authority to set emission guidelines.

That's the gist of it but imagine the logical consequences. What the court is saying is that the EPA has no authority to stop the burning of anything, it only has the authority to apply the best-known commercially viable technology to make the emissions of that burning as clean as can be. So, for example, if you wanted to incinerate lead ingots - and let's just ignore the reasons you'd want to do this for debate purp…

The federal government probably sees it like this: one person’s problem is another person’s benefit. Also, the air doesn’t vote.

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

#963

Post by patentatt »

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…

Except this is a complete straw man in the current political reality. Climate change legislation will never get a single Republican vote, and we all know it. And they will never be held accountable for that because the people that vote for them are either uninformed or misinformed about climate change, by the same forces that influence congress!

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

#964

Post by bberrry »

spoils19 wrote: post #951
Sakos wrote: post #895

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

Please be sarcastic

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

#965

Post by [deleted] »

th3byrdm4n wrote: post #943
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 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

[deleted]

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

#966

Post by [deleted] »

gnicholas wrote: post #234
gumby wrote: post #24

What’s interesting about this ruling (if you listened to the oral arguments and read the ruling) is that it appears to undercut the ability for any executive agency to make a rule, under them claim that congress cannot delegate its powers. So the FAA can’t determine and then require that aircraft have transponders. Congress has to do this. If they continue down this path it will be chaos.

I read this differently (and am a former lawyer who worked on administrative law). This is about the "major questions doctrine", which involves a subset of administrative actions. It's not about whether administrative agencies can do anything whatsoever. > Under this body of law, known as the major questions doctrine, given both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent, the…

[deleted]

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

#967

Post by rufus_foreman »

davidw wrote: post #452
gsibble wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highly disagree. All of the recent decisions make perfect legal sense, this coming from the son of a Constitutional attorney who has described to me the rulings, reasons behind them, precedents, etc.. And he's a pro-choice, anti-gun Democrat. He still agrees with the legal decisions. I read the rulings myself too and they make total sense given what I've learned over decades of listening to him.

They're pretty much at the point of flat out lying about things, like the prayer case. Sotomayor, in her dissent, included actual photographs of the coach huddling/praying with the whole team, which is quite coercive behavior. It wasn't a 'quiet prayer'. https://twitter.com/cristianafarias/status/15414273388266291...

>> included actual photographs of the coach huddling/praying with the whole team, which is quite coercive behavior

The photo on the bottom right was from before the coach was asked to stop giving post-game talks that included prayer, an order he complied with. It is not the behavior at question in the court case, so absolutely irrelevant to the matter at hand. I think Sotomayor should have included a date on the photo to make this clear.

Photo on the top right is of the coach being joined in prayer only by members of the opposing team, so if he was coercing the players on his own team, is was quite ineffective. It was a silent prayer, so yes, quiet.

Photo on the left is the coach being joined in prayer by members of the public, not team members, so also not good evidence of coercion. Also a silent prayer, so yes, quiet.

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

#968

Post by shrimpx »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #948
shrimpx wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A core problem IMO is that justices are appointed politically. There's an assumption that politicians and their parties will appoint unbiased justices, presumably out of the goodness of their heart and respect for norms... That assumption looks laughably flawed today.

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

#969

Post by abandonliberty »

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,…

So you're hoping pedantry will save us from climate change. Hopefully you live long enough to see how this turns out.

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

#970

Post by andrekandre »

rory wrote: post #937
andrekandre wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there are a lot of lesson so be had... just a few... - long term planning of the gop vs short term tactics of dems - justices staying on too long until it was too late - bad (tone-deaf) campaigning for prez lost 3 seats on the sc - ignoring rural and working-class (used to be the dems bread and butter) dissolved their base of support (clinton and the "new" dems) - relying on the sc for too many rulings... next we loo…

There's really no reason I can think of that the Dems would deem the Freedom of Choice Act "not a priority" other to play political games in future presidential races. I'm convinced they basically wanted to be able to continue to use the threat of a Roe overturn to steer swing voters to their side, but never actually believed it would happen. That said, I highly doubt Loving would ever be overturned. It sits on very…

  > I'm convinced they basically wanted to be able to continue to use the threat of a Roe overturn to steer swing voters to their side
i wouldn't be surprised, the dems leadership seems to play games like that a lot and constantly get burned (baiting trump to run etc)

  > I highly doubt Loving would ever be overturned. It sits on very solid legal ground
thomas said "we should revisit all cases decided via the 14th amendment", and interracial marriage is one of them... just my opinion but i think we are past saying "it wont happen" anymore with regards to these things...
Post reply on HN