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

981–990 of 1001 posts

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

#981

Post by mriet »

throw10920 wrote: post #435
voisin wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is Congress not capable of listening to those experts and then publicly debating which of their suggestions to implement?

1. Dunning-Krueger or, in other words, Congress probably thinks they know better.

2. Politicians, per definition, are elected to represent the interests of their constituents. Many constituents disagree with experts (climate change, for example). QED, there is little motivation for politicians to listen or follow the advice of experts, especially if an expert's conclusion is not popular.

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

#982

Post by belltaco »

xyzzyz wrote: post #623
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…

The headlines aren’t entirely wrong. 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. On the other hand, if you read liberal dissents, they’re mostly about what they think appropriate policy should be. In this particular case, the majority opinion starts off by quoting the relevant statute and analyzing its meaning, where…

Trivially disproven by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31940815

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

#983

Post by aaron_m04 »

xyzzyz wrote: post #933
aaron_m04 wrote: post #928

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] if the Congress wants EPA to regulate emissions the way they tried to do, all it needs to do is to pass a law explicitly instructing it to do so. Of course, it won’t, because there is no political will in Congress to pass this. At this stage in the climate crisis, we really need to be focused on direct results of political actions. The majority of the US population wants regulations to fight climate change, a…

No, I strongly disagree. If elected representatives cannot agree on what is proper policy and pass it as law, I for one do not want some nameless bureaucrats be the ones calling the shots. Unelected bureaucrats creating policy as they wish, unconstrained by what the law actually says, is what actually is undemocratic. Look, even as there might be general agreement among the people to fight climate change, there might…

We are in such a desperate situation with the climate that we pretty much have to look at which of the two is most likely to enact policies that cut carbon emissions: is it the EPA, or Congress?

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

#984

Post by mlindner »

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.

The supreme court didn't take away the ability to get abortions. It just moved jurisdiction to states instead of at the federal level because there is absolutely no mention of abortion in the Constitution, when there absolute is mention of guns in the Constitution.

The majority of states in the US will have the same abortion laws they have always had.

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

#985

Post by mlindner »

themaninthedark wrote: post #640
Workaccount2 wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the EPA is kneecapped since they have to go through the most ineffective and hyper partisan congress since the founding of the country.

The EPA is under the executive branch, they should not "have to go through congress" for anything. That is entirely out of their scope of operation. They are supposed to be enforcing and upholding the laws that congress enacts.

The Executive branch is not a king. They cannot make new laws. We live in a democracy.

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

#986

Post by iostream24 »

… based on a proposed bill that never became law. The Supreme Court based their judgement on the Obama era Clean Power Act which never became law. That’s how out-of-their-way to cause trouble this court went.

This Supreme Court is going out of its way to be destructive and cause harm.

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

#987

Post by native_samples »

aaron_m04 wrote: post #928
xyzzyz wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The headlines aren’t entirely wrong. 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. On the other hand, if you read liberal dissents, they’re mostly about what they think appropriate policy should be. In this particular case, the majority opinion starts off by quoting the relevant statute and analyzing its meaning, where…

> [...] if the Congress wants EPA to regulate emissions the way they tried to do, all it needs to do is to pass a law explicitly instructing it to do so. Of course, it won’t, because there is no political will in Congress to pass this. At this stage in the climate crisis, we really need to be focused on direct results of political actions. The majority of the US population wants regulations to fight climate change, a…

No post body was provided.

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

#988

Post by Buttons840 »

jaywalk wrote: post #924
Buttons840 wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The court can't just overturn laws. Cases have to be brought to them first. So your argument of "why is X bad law allowed to stand when they just overturned Y?" doesn't hold water.

What do you think of this article? https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/The-Su...

"""The Supreme Court decision ignored and damaged long-standing Constitutional principles designed to limit the power of the judiciary. Courts are not allowed to just issue pronouncements of what they think the law should be. They can only act to resolve a real controversy between adverse parties and enforce the will of Congress. Instead, the court changed a lawfully enacted statute without having any final or even proposed regulation before it. There is no “case or controversy” here, which for 200 years has been a rock-solid prerequisite for judicial action. Hence, the opinion violates the long-standing separation of powers principle, which until now, has restrained the judiciary from ideological adventuring."""

It appears the court has done exactly what you said they cannot. If you disagree then I would ask: What case was brought before the court before they made this ruling?

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

#989

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

egg1 wrote: post #703
SllX wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there was once a Congress that passed the Missouri Compromise which institutionalized hyper-partisanship and another that was so ineffective its successor Congress literally fell apart when several States seceded from the Union and those States then went to War with the Union. So, cut the hyperbole. Partisanship has always been a political reality. The EPA is capped to the powers that Congress gave it, and does…

I fear what a lot of what outspoken "progressive" types (and yes, before anyone asks, also the MAGA crowd) want is a CCP-style political system as long as they're the ones in control. Concepts like separation of powers and rule of law are merely obstacles to smash through on their road to utopia.

Few progressives want sprawling bureaucracy. Rather, that’s typically what we get out of social safety nets due to conservative sabotaging of the process and text.

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

#990

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

blowski wrote: post #630
Workaccount2 wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the EPA is kneecapped since they have to go through the most ineffective and hyper partisan congress since the founding of the country.

Perhaps there is a hyper-partisan congress because it’s a reaction to what some have viewed as a hyper-partisan Supreme Court. On a positive reading, the Court is now saying states have the right to choose these issues for themselves. There are means in the constitution for overruling a minority of states, that is by passing a constitutional amendment. By allowing and even encouraging the Court to make these decision…

The previous court was conservative on a linear scale. The current court is radically conservative with fascist imperialist theological trends becoming more apparent by the day.
Post reply on HN