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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

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

#991

Post by jpadkins »

hellojesus wrote: post #936
Bhilai wrote: post #935

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree and its frustrating to see this crowd continually push the point that congress needs to grant explicit powers to the EPA when they already know that every single Republican politician is against moving the needle on climate change. This case was filed by 19 Republican lead states which constitute 44% of emissions in the US and is a multiyear effort by conservative climate change deniers[1] Any significant law…

Couldn't Congress roll out a clarification of this rule quickly? They own the big three right now, so it would be pretty easy if they kept any fluff out of the legislation.

Correct. Also, Democrats could have passed an abortion bill in 2008-2010 when they had a super majority in the senate, but choose not to.

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

#992

Post by vdnkh »

thirtyfivecent wrote: post #972
vdnkh wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lol

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

#993

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

cryptonector wrote: post #285
AlotOfReading wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you write an entire opinion about delegation without mentioning Chevron ? As the dissent points out, that delegation is inherently required to do the EPA's job and the court has previously accepted their technical and policy expertise in this area.

You would think they would have reversed Chevron, or distinguished it. But note, I've not read this decision yet, and I'm taking your word for their not mentioning Chevron.

I wonder if the conservative majority will use these recent decisions as precedent to overturn Chevron in what would be another shocking and shameless display of legislating from the bench.

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

#994

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

barsonme wrote: post #653
matthewdgreen wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Congress can still pass a law empowering EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Congress gave the EPA broad discretion that it could have revoked -- using your argument -- at any moment. This issue has been bouncing around for over a decade, and Congress has systematically declined to do so.

They’ve declined to do a lot over the last decade :)

Moscow cocaine McConnell has sand bagged any progress on anything substantive in return for the handsome bribes he’s accepted and arranged.

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

#995

Post by minkzilla »

pylon wrote: post #410
thepasswordis wrote: post #314

Good. I have to say that, as an anti-authoritarian, conservative advocate of individual liberty, this last week has been extremely inspiring. To those who are confused about how the system in the US works: the court has basically decreased their own power with some of these decisions. That’s the type of thing that should give everybody, regardless of affiliation, hope about the future.

Making it easier for states to ban abortion is good for individual liberty?

Yes, for the unborn.

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

#996

Post by maccolgan »

equalsione wrote: post #227
cloutchaser wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Over 60% of the US population think abortion should be legal. More than half of US states are (or are very likely) to institute abortion bans. To the broader point, there has to be _representative_ democracy for decentralized decision making to be fair - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2021/nov/...

No state is representative of the whole US population. Don't think the US is a united whole.

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

#998

Post by confidantlake »

colmmacc wrote: post #313
Ekaros wrote: post #10

Seems like they are really working towards democracy. Making them actually make the laws.

I've lived here in the US for 12 years and recently became a US Citizen. Coming from Ireland, to me the US is quite far from a functioning democracy. The democratic will of the people is not reflected in the make-up of congress, the courts, or three times in my lifetime - the Presidency (Clinton, W. Bush, and Trump were each elected by popular minorities). Much of this is a result of the court's rulings (very directl…

Clinton never lost the popular vote, but I agree with your points.

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

#999

Post by Sporktacular »

From the NTY op ed: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/opinion/supreme-court-epa...

"Chief Justice Roberts’s predecessors recognized their own limitations. In the 1984 ruling that formalized the court’s policy of regulatory deference, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that “judges are not experts in the field and are not part of either political branch of the government.” Both points are important. The court lacks technical expertise and an electoral mandate. Thursday’s decision asserting a more muscular role is thus a blow to both the public interest and democracy."

At this point, those repeating the Fox News 'this is a win for accountability by returning power to elected officials' line are just being lazy.

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

#1000

Post by throw10920 »

iostream24 wrote: post #861
philwelch wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of justices on the current Supreme Court have been doing a good job of sticking to the law rather than attempting to enact policy. What you’re describing is a good criticism of the mid-20th century Supreme Court, but the current Court has done a good job of rolling back those excesses.

I strongly disagree. I see this current court having extremely low legitimacy engaged in naked power grabs: In one session they’ve removed the ability to sue over Miranda rights, stricken down a fifty year precedent and told a state that they can’t enact their own concealed carry act. I don’t doubt that you will claim that these actions are the logical course of originalism in its purest form, but I find it judicial…

> I strongly disagree. I see this current court having extremely low legitimacy engaged in naked power grabs

Your disagreement doesn't have any effect on reality.

Care to back up your claims with actual evidence?

> stricken down a fifty year precedent

Is it somehow bad to strike down old precedents, regardless of content?

> told a state that they can’t enact their own concealed carry act

Is it somehow bad to tell US states that they can't do things that would violate the US constitution, which is explicitly meant to apply to all states?

> obtuse society-wrecking

Translation: "these rulings don't agree with my political positions" (so I'm going to use language that conceals my preference to suggest that they're bad).

> They shall go down in our childrens history as villains.

Not a constructive addition to the conversation, smells of emotional manipulation.

Post reply on HN