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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by vkou »

worker_person wrote: post #840
joshstrange wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the idea of the SC kicking things back to congress and that would be well and good if we didn't have minority rule in this country coupled with the outsized power that land has over people. On top of that we have a disgusting high rep->citizen ratio because of a silly law congress passed capping it's size. Throw in gerrymandering and election boards rejecting results of elections (and things like Jan 6th…

For EPA. Court took power away from unelected bureaucrats and gave it back to elected officials. For Row. Court took power away from itself and gave it back to elected officials. You can vote for those elected officials. This is democracy working as intended.

> For EPA. Court took power away from unelected bureaucrats and gave it back to elected officials.

The elected officials never lost this power, if congress didn't want the EPA to do something they could draft and vote on a bill to that effect by Tuesday.

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

#972

Post by thirtyfivecent »

vdnkh wrote: post #869
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…

Over the past few years I've noticed that HN has swung very far to the right. Any politically-adjacent topic tends to feature more than a few upvoted right-wing grievance posts. I still like HN for the articles but it's honestly insufferable to read the comments. On this particular topic, it's infuriating to see the average HN bozo think of the constitution as a set of unit tests for justices to run through.

The average HN Bozo? lol. America is turning into Weimar. People here are good at pattern recognition and logic. We recognise whats going on and switch to the right. Go figure.

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

#973

Post by acdha »

devwastaken wrote: post #910
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…

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 nam…

> 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.

This is a gross misrepresentation. Civil servants can follow processes within the bounds set by Congress and are required to follow agency processes which are set carefully, with deliberation and public comment. There are appeals processes and the court system as remedies.

Yes, you hear about “abuses” – that’s because there’s an entire industry pumping out propaganda to support outcomes like this. The vast majority of the time when you look at the details it turns out either to be substantially different than claimed or a problem created by the Congress which the agency would prefer not to be saddled with.

The underlying problem here is that the Congress keeps getting slower & less functional. Delegating power more broadly helps reduce the impacts of that but at some point we have to make the Congress work better and that’s really hard to do when one of the major parties has a platform based on the idea that the government should be dysfunctional.

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

#974

Post by Semiapies »

the_only_law wrote: post #729
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…

> Every surpreme court article makes me hate this community a bit more. I mean, HN is kinda a go to place for pendantry, it's not terribly surprising. People started a huge fight over whether the word "they" can refer to a single individual the other week.

Singular they goes back far enough in English that you can find it spelled with thorn, but of course people here know better.

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

#975

Post by woojoo666 »

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…

I'm curious about this "do what I say" vs "do what I mean" partisan split. I can see how this particular case clearly applies, but you have any other examples?

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

#976

Post by 1123581321 »

Buttons840 wrote: post #765
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…

As an example, my understanding is that the federal government can regulate my ability to grow a plant and consume it in my own home based upon their argument that I'm participating in interstate commerce. The feds argued that growing a plan is participating in interstate commerce[1]. This law will stand while the court clutches their pearls about the environmental protection agency seeking to protect the environment…

Involve yourself in efforts to bring a challenging case. I’m not aware of a recent affirmation of Wickard.

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

#977

Post by 1123581321 »

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…

Hah, I am tempted to assent to your first sentence, but it’s because of people who share your misunderstandings. :(

That temptation I feel bad about, and I do think the mutual refusal to admit similarly fanciful teleology will continue to worsen until our respective political leaders set better examples for us.

In the mean time, I’ll continue to have productive discussions and affect legislation and policy alongside people with which I both disagree and agree, hoping that the productive attitude will affect levels above my influence until enough of us change federal government.

Wishing you’ll do the same.

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

#978

Post by DangitBobby »

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…

The way I see it, we've found the great filter.

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

#979

Post by DangitBobby »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #586
hunglee2 wrote: post #210

owning the supreme court was the republicans trump card, the Presidency is only a pit stop toward the true goal. Got it for a life time now don't they? Got to hand it to them, smart long term planning

To think there are people to who stayed home in Nov' 16 because they were salty that Bernie didn't get the nomination.

The Dems are really showing them why they deserved the vote now, aren't they?

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

#980

Post by tootallgavin »

andrekandre wrote: post #970
rory wrote: post #937

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 amendm…

Calling brown skin black is... a weird place to start. Further, there is no legal definition of black person or white person. So, it would be hard to revisit, for instance, interracial marriage in a way that doesn't overlook the 14th amendment
Post reply on HN