18 ms·

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 intenti

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 don't believe people on this site are too stupid to realize that, I believe they prefer not to, because they support the outcomes these rulings enact. And given that, we are in a lot of trouble.

notacoward 4y ago
What the court is engaged in is an extreme case of motivated reasoning, sinking almost to the level of what the legal profession calls parallel construction. In fact there were many logically consistent arguments for this decision, and many logically consistent arguments for the dissent. They're all right there, both sides, in the text. It's why dissents are written and preserved. Often a point raised in a dissent for one case becomes more important than the ruling itself. Anyone who gets too carried away with the logical consistency of the majority opinion is ignoring the record. Which brings us to the terms I introduced earlier. 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.
patentatt 4y ago
As a lawyer, I agree with you whole heartedly. Just because a legal decision recites a sound legal argument doesn't mean that that's the only sound legal argument they could have made. In the same way that a competent lawyer can make the best arguments for either side of a case, a judge could write multiple opinions for the same case that have different outcomes. And all could be just as legitimate from a logic and legal standpoint. But the judge chooses what opinion to write and what outcome they want. All of this makes the study of law kind of silly, because you study a bunch of case law and pretend that there's consistency or logic that ties them together, but really it's largely driven by the individual personalities more than some platonic ideal of what the law should be. It's a liberal art, not a science.
1123581321 4y ago
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.
extheat 4y ago
If you take an overly simplistic view of things then yes every ruling is partisan everywhere. This by itself is not a meaningful insight because all forms of government will be corrupt. The purpose of SCOTUS isn’t to rule based on what the desired outcome is, it’s to rule based on what the law explicitly does say and is permitted to say per the Constitution. I believe if we set aside climate change, for most reasonable people it’s not hard to see that the executive branch took action that the legislative branch never gave them, (and likely did so because they knew such laws could not pass Congress).
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  >The purpose of SCOTUS isn’t to rule based on what the desired outcome is, it’s to rule based on what the law explicitly does say and is permitted to say per the Constitution I claim they have never done this. That every ruling has had an eye towards the outcome, whether stated or unstated, and that when they claim to be acting as mechanistic evaluators they are attempting to hide their interest in the effect they're having. Besides, its a terrible idea. The real effects of their rulings matter much more than the philosophy.
  - specialist 4y ago
    WRT so-called "textualism" and "originalism", I fully agree.
  - pfortuny 4y ago
    The burden of proof on such a sweeping statement is clearly on you…
    - philosopher1234 4y ago
      How do you prove whats in anothers heart? Its not provable. But if you dont try and figure it out, you can't understand the world. If you don't think its true, why not?
  - hcurtiss 4y ago
bmitc 4y ago
Societal concerns cannot be deterministically determined via deductive logic. So, people who hide behind "this sounds logical to me", whether intentionally or not, just happen to agree with the specific logic used in that instance. When presented with other so-called logic, suddenly it's illogical.
- csdvrx 4y ago
  > just happen to agree with the specific logic used in that instance That's a very biased take. I think someone else said it better: what both the "progressive" and the "neocons" want is "a CCP-style political system as long as they're the ones in control" where "concepts like separation of powers and rule of law are merely obstacles to smash through on their road to utopia" It's very rare than unconstitutional power grants are clawed back, so personally I see what's happening right now as a good precedent: it says the executive and the administration can't just wish into existence new laws or power grants: they have to operate within their existing bounds. Deductive logic is totally applicable here. Otherwise, it gives you a situation where a president believes he can legally become judge, jury and executioner through executive order (pun intended) and order the army to execute US citizens by birthright through drone strikes. Just because they are enemy combatants or some other convenient legal fiction doesn't make it a-ok.
the_only_law 4y ago
> 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.
- Semiapies 4y ago
  Singular they goes back far enough in English that you can find it spelled with thorn, but of course people here know better.
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  I think you give HN too much credit. Not every topic evokes pedantry. HN has specific interests, and brings out nitpicking to advance specific causes.
- lemmiwinks 4y ago
  > People started a huge fight over whether the word "they" can refer to a single individual the other week. Link please?
spencerflem 4y ago
Thank you for saying this, i completly agree. It honestly makes me ashamed to be a programmer associating with this type of person whos completely incapable of understanding even the simplest social issue
- Bostonian 4y ago
  Intelligent people can disagree on abortion, gay marriage, gun control, and other issues. People on both sides of these issues can understand them but reach different conclusions based on their values.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
joshstrange 4y ago
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) and it's clear democracy is dying.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  How does land have power over people? States with more land don't have more representation than states with less land, but states with more people do have more representation than states with fewer people. As a concrete example, New Jersey has the same representation in the Senate and 12x the representation in the House as Alaska, despite only having 1% of the land of Alaska.
  - joshstrange 4y ago
    Maybe that was badly phrased but it refers to states having more power than they should (or less) due to how the electoral college and senators work.
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      It was designed that way on purpose.
      - halostatue 4y ago
        Yes. To give the slave states power beyond their value.
        robonerd 4y ago
        The value of those states was not in question when they threatened succession; they were important enough to fight a war over. Nor would many of the states have joined the union in the first place if not for this system, so America wouldn't have existed in the first place if you had your way. The entire country is premised on this compromise.
johndhi 4y ago
I, for one, wish the EPA (or some body) were empowered to do more than it does, but I also (to some degree) respect the logic of many conservative judicial opinions. Just sayin.
rayiner 4y ago
If that's your argument, then surely the proper approach is to criticize the Court for those instances where their logic isn't consistent, instead of when the logic is consistent. For example, Thomas vigorously dissented in Gonzales v. Raich, where Scalia voted to uphold federal marijuana restrictions as a proper exercise of the Commerce power. There is nothing wrong with judges having an "agenda" as long as that agenda rests on legal doctrine and philosophy, and not "outcomes."
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  It's interesting that you are bringing the conversation back to consistency when I explicitly said my POV is that consistency (here) is a red herring.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    How can consistency possibly be a "red herring" when talking about judicial decisions?
    - philosopher1234 4y ago
      Suppose I’m a pro lifer for reasons I’m ashamed of. The supreme court strikes down roe v wade, and I’m secretly pleased, but can’t admit it. Wouldn’t it be nice to defend the decision by arguing about its consistency? It’s a red herring in these discussions because it’s not the true reason people support it.
      - remarkEon 4y ago
        I can't parse what this means. Is the idea that we are to assume malice of intent to the reasons the Court does things, and that "consistency" is not a legitimate reason to argue about it? How do you know what the "true" reason is?
        philosopher1234 4y ago
itsoktocry 4y ago
>Their logic can be consistent and they can still be partisans, looking to implement a specific agenda. While your logic is consistent, unbiased, agenda-free and non-partisan. >because they support the outcomes these rulings enact. While the fact that you do not support these outcomes has no bearing in your opinions on the matter.
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  I never claimed either of those things. I am biased too. We are all biased. We should be discussing openly our opinions of these outcomes, not wasting time hiding behind procedural arguments.
lolinder 4y ago
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, yes, I support the outcomes of this ruling just as much as I support the reasoning. Congress needs to get its act together and legislate, not let the Executive branch make up rules to fill the void they've left.
- th3byrdm4n 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Imnimo 4y ago
  It strikes me as extremely naive to believe that this same precedent will be applied to agencies like the FBI and NSA. The supreme court is not an automaton bound by the laws of logic to act consistently.
- cyanydeez 4y ago
  The "creative" you speak of is a bullshit stance because congress isn't a computer, never will be, and all you're doing is not liking the outcome which is what the parent is explaining: rationalizing your bias after the fact. Others would say they are implementing the details of broad brushed Congressional laws.
- abandonliberty 4y ago
  So you're hoping pedantry will save us from climate change. Hopefully you live long enough to see how this turns out.
Buttons840 4y ago
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. [1]: I'm trying to find the source. Something to do with the commerce clause I think. There was a court case where the government clearly argued that even local actions inside the state count as interstate commerce. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn?wprov=sfla1
- jaywalk 4y ago
  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.
  - Buttons840 4y ago
    What do you think of this article? https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/The-Supreme-Court-s-EPA-ruling-just-17277410.php 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?
    - jaywalk 4y ago
giantg2 4y ago
"I don't believe people on this site are too stupid to realize that, I believe they prefer not to, because they support the outcomes these rulings enact. And given that, we are in a lot of trouble." If what you're saying is true, then the same could be said if the rulings went the other way. Basically the whole system is an oligarchy and the winning side will claim legitimacy and logic, while the losing side complains about a lack thereof. So what is the solution? Edit: why disagree without discussion or providing the solution?
- etherael 4y ago
  Stop tyring to do everything through naked force and pursue market solutions that people adopt because it's economically advantageous for them to do so? Stop sending SWAT teams at people already trying to do this? (https://youtu.be/i4Hnv_ZJSQY?t=250 https://youtu.be/i4Hnv_ZJSQY?t=250) Everybody who looks hard enough knows that neither of these things will happen and we know why. That people ignore it or pretend otherwise is the real problem at the root of this whole situation.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Are you talking about capitalist or free market minarchy?
    - etherael 4y ago
      I am not talking about any particular political framework at all. I am trying to point out that if you start from that premise you prejudice the kinds of diagnoses and solutions to any potential problem you come up with. Which is of course the exact reason that the parties who stand to gain so much wealth and power from the exercise are so desperate that this should be the default, and why to the extent there is a problem that might be solved, quick, easy and relatively cheap direct voluntary action solutions need to be hit with SWAT raids lest the power and wealth that might be attained from nebulous, slow, difficult and extremely expensive solutions which are by contrast pushed by force upon the entire planet.
Seattle3503 4y ago
HN is by and large reactionary.
- spencerflem 4y ago
  I don't know why you're being downvoted, this is correct. Just offering my support and the knowledge that not all programmers are assholes with more money than sense and a smug superiority that comes from assuming the whole world is an algorithm. Just most of them.
  - Sakos 4y ago
    I generally try to avoid HN discussions about politics, geopolitics or anything related to human society, because there are some ass-backwards, heartless, libertarian people here who don't care about how outcomes affect people as long as it happens to fit with their ideology. Seeing the responses here makes me feel justified. The only reason why I come back is because the technical discussions are incredibly good.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      The thing about libertarianism is it has done more good for more people than any other ideology. Note that libertarianism leaves people free to care for others as much as they want to.
      - spencerflem 4y ago
        i was having a nice time griping until you showed up. Given how libertarians seem completely unconcerned with raising wages or protecting the environment it seems that amount is 0
        WalterBright 4y ago
        I am a libertarian, and if you're familiar with my postings, I have made many environment protecting proposals that would be much more effective than the current ones. Also for improving other facets of our lives, like wages. I know there are many libertarians who give the philosophy a bad name. If you have something specific you'd like to ask about it, I'll try to give a good answer.
ironman1478 4y ago
> I don't believe people on this site are too stupid to realize that, I believe they prefer not to, because they support the outcomes these rulings enact. HN is just a forum. Its not much different than Reddit, its just more moderated which I greatly appreciate. I think the people aren't stupid. Its just that people have grown up being told the Supreme Court was some non-partisan objective organization, when really is full of partisan hacks and law by very nature is political. Its hard to undo years of hearing the same thing.
- spencerflem 4y ago
  I just find it sad, because even Reddit got this one right. This is the most SCOTUS bootlicking ive seen in one thread and it's all done by programmers who are supposed to be my people y'know? Feels personal
  - ironman1478 4y ago
    Being a programmer only implies one thing. That the person is a programmer. It has 0 correlation with other skills or thoughts. I used to be disappointed by this too, but people are multifaceted and being able to make a computer do something useful isn't correlated with being able to understand politics, be good at playing an instrument, etc. The people who are good at multiple things (or knowledgeable about multiple topics) are that way because they put in the work, just like they did for programming.
    - Semiapies 4y ago
      It's, unfortunately, correlated with people who think they are polymath geniuses because they know C or a Lisp.
    - spencerflem 4y ago
      thank you <3
  - worker_person 4y ago
    There are conservative programmers. We just learn to keep our heads down. I spent a few years researching all viewpoints to figure out my position. Didn't realize I would be hated for thinking for myself.
Bostonian 4y ago
A counterexample to the idea that the Court is just trying to implement a right-wing agenda is just ruled 5-4 in BIDEN ET AL. v. TEXAS ET AL. that Biden could discontinue Trump's "remain in Mexico" immigration policy. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh. https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/Biden-v-Texas-06-30-2022.pdf https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/Biden-v-Texas-0...
jahewson 4y ago
I keep seeing this “if you disagree with me you must believe something really bad and I’m going to put those words into your mouth” rhetorical device around. Does it have a name? It’s tedious. The court’s position that the executive cannot unilaterally govern by bending the rules is a good thing! The problem is that the line they draw is arbitrary - and they just insert their agenda at the boundary. The perfect thus becomes the enemy of the good, because the court chose a questionable boundary and because the legislature is now responsible for passing the necessary laws - as they should. In reality, they won’t do that, but that’s not the court’s fault. Now you can certainly make the argument that the court should stick with the precedent of deferring to the executive instead of the legislature (laws after all, cannot anticipate everything and the court can avoid having to create arbitrary boundaries). But that’s a conversation that’s got nothing to do with climate change or any specific outcome. For comparison, how did you feel about the court deferring to the Trump executive? Was their rule bending something we want to see more of? If a liberal court broke with precedent in the same manner to restrict Trump from doing something crazy, would that be good?
car_analogy 4y ago
> The court hasn't completely prevented the EPA from making these regulations in the future - but says that Congress would have to clearly say it authorises this power. As someone that supports far harsher emissions regulations than were in effect even before this ruling, is it too much to ask that laws should be clear? As others have pointed out, there's no limit to the danger posed by letting the executive branch creatively interpret legislation.
ErikVandeWater 4y ago
One can read a ruling and see how many hoops the justices jumped through to get to a particular decision. Let me lead by saying I'm a pro choice person, and hope federal legislation is passed protecting abortion in all 50 states: Roe V. Wade is a good example. The justices didn't find any mention of "abortion", any description of abortion, or any medical procedure whatsoever in the constitution, or any mention of "trimesters". Yet they found by using a combination of no less than 5 amendments, that it in fact was protected, and then the supreme court decided exactly how long into a pregnancy abortion could be banned. They probably had consistent logic in what they said technically, but it strained credulity too much to believe they actually thought the constitution, in the text as it was written, protected a right to abortion. Would you agree the sword cuts both ways with regards to the statement: > I don't believe people on this site are too stupid to realize that, I believe they prefer not to, because they support the outcomes these rulings enact.
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  Yes I agree, I think its a universal human quality. And I think we should start talking about abortion directly, not through 50 layers of legaleze. The only way a pro-lifer on HN can express their opinion is indirectly, through technical criticism. But why can't they express their pro life opinion directly? Because people will disagree with them? The only thing people do on HN is disagree. This is the issue that needs exploring, not the intricacies of judicial logic.
  - CptJupiterNorth 4y ago
    This community isn't what I thought it was, either. I'm new to commenting, and my account has negative karma because I said something true that the 2A people didn't like.
    - philosopher1234 4y ago
      Welcome. People aren't likely to lay their cards on the table, but this is a political place like anywhere else.
citilife 4y ago
There's a lot on this site that makes me question "what happened"? Growing up on the internet (IRC, Forums, eventually HN, etc) there was always a "hacker" or "libertarian" spirit. Less government ("the man"), less regulation, more freedom, more ability to create and inspire. Now, I see many people (often the same people) seemingly become hyper partisian when the Supreme Court saying "congress never authorized this, they'd need to to make this legal". All the recent court rulings have been very consistent that "the will of the people (congress) never approved this". IMO you're correct, the Supreme court is partisan. However, this feels far less partisan than normal and the reasoning seems to be sound (congress never implemented this law / passed an amendment / etc). In the courts opinions will often explain how to make it a law / legal. The shock I've experienced with the HN community is how it's been far less thoughtful as late (3-4 years) and discussions are suppressed / devolve quickly. The idea of the libertarian ethos of the "hacker" community, to me, appears dead. Now, I see a far less thoughtful, more partisan, more angry community. Even in your comment, you mention you "hate" the community (I'm assuming you mean just parts of it). It dismays me.
jxramos 4y ago
I don't think the name of the game is at the level of upholding consistent logic in and of itself but of defending the separation of powers granted to the three branches of government. You can think of it as analogous to programming architectural defensive tests enforcing the boundaries. This is at the level of governance design and protecting that design.
mcbrit 4y ago
It is well known that there are competing, consistent theories on how to interpret the Constitution. If we assume that each Justice subscribes to a consistent theory on how to interpret the Constitution, you omit a discussion (much less a proof) that at least one Justice's theory is 'partisan', that the theory being partisan would be bad, or to make a foundational move, that a theory that is nonpartisan exists. I think there are interesting discussions to be had on all of those topics. I think your post is too strongly worded, being a triple attack on the hn community, the Supreme Court, and the state of American politics.
vdnkh 4y ago
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.
- thirtyfivecent 4y ago
  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.
  - vdnkh 4y ago
    Lol
Sakos 4y ago
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-epa/ 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. “Critics would say, ‘No, what’s happening is you’re taking power away from agencies, which have some degree of democratic accountability to the president, and you are actually granting the power to the courts, which are not democratically accountable at all.’” This is the first step in dismantling regulatory bodies on a federal level. I have no idea how people can be supportive of the decision. It seems insane to me.
- spoils19 4y ago
  - bberrry 4y ago
    Please be sarcastic
- danielmarkbruce 4y ago
  It might not be a good idea, but google search will turn up the logic behind opposition to the power of the regulatory agencies.
- devwastaken 4y ago
  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 name of the game for long standing organizations. That is, preserve the org first, not complete the mission. When you look into the deep history of federal corruption it's plain as day that it's overwhelmingly a political wheelhouse with only a sprinkle of objective. Federal agencies that were once founded in earnest are long taken over by this principle. The founders have left the building.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
datavirtue 4y ago
"A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself..." Simple. End of story. If the Supreme Court has one job it's punting shit to Congress--the appropriate branch.
Bhilai 4y ago
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 will simply not pass the senate because the only thing senate Republicans are apparently good at is blocking progress. So this double play on the part of right leaning commentators is really in bad faith. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/19/climate/supreme-court-climate-epa.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/19/climate/supreme-court-cli...
- hellojesus 4y ago
  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.
  - patentatt 4y ago
    I would like to introduce you to Senator Joe Manchin. No substantive climate change legislation is going to pass the Senate. Stop pretending like it's possible.
  - jpadkins 4y ago
    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.
- scarmig 4y ago
  This has to be seen as part of a broader program against the administrative state, although here it takes the contours of the climate debate. For the coming years you'll be seeing the same approach used in this decision to rip apart everything from labor regulations to HUD programs.

notacoward 4y ago

What the court is engaged in is an extreme case of motivated reasoning, sinking almost to the level of what the legal profession calls parallel construction. In fact there were many logically consistent arguments for this decision, and many logically consistent arguments for the dissent. They're all right there, both sides, in the text. It's why dissents are written and preserved. Often a point raised in a dissent for one case becomes more important than the ruling itself. Anyone who gets too carried away with the logical consistency of the majority opinion is ignoring the record. Which brings us to the terms I introduced earlier. 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.

patentatt 4y ago

As a lawyer, I agree with you whole heartedly. Just because a legal decision recites a sound legal argument doesn't mean that that's the only sound legal argument they could have made. In the same way that a competent lawyer can make the best arguments for either side of a case, a judge could write multiple opinions for the same case that have different outcomes. And all could be just as legitimate from a logic and legal standpoint. But the judge chooses what opinion to write and what outcome they want. All of this makes the study of law kind of silly, because you study a bunch of case law and pretend that there's consistency or logic that ties them together, but really it's largely driven by the individual personalities more than some platonic ideal of what the law should be. It's a liberal art, not a science.

1123581321 4y ago

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.

extheat 4y ago

If you take an overly simplistic view of things then yes every ruling is partisan everywhere. This by itself is not a meaningful insight because all forms of government will be corrupt. The purpose of SCOTUS isn’t to rule based on what the desired outcome is, it’s to rule based on what the law explicitly does say and is permitted to say per the Constitution. I believe if we set aside climate change, for most reasonable people it’s not hard to see that the executive branch took action that the legislative branch never gave them, (and likely did so because they knew such laws could not pass Congress).

philosopher1234 4y ago
>The purpose of SCOTUS isn’t to rule based on what the desired outcome is, it’s to rule based on what the law explicitly does say and is permitted to say per the Constitution I claim they have never done this. That every ruling has had an eye towards the outcome, whether stated or unstated, and that when they claim to be acting as mechanistic evaluators they are attempting to hide their interest in the effect they're having. Besides, its a terrible idea. The real effects of their rulings matter much more than the philosophy.
- specialist 4y ago
  WRT so-called "textualism" and "originalism", I fully agree.
- pfortuny 4y ago
  The burden of proof on such a sweeping statement is clearly on you…
  - philosopher1234 4y ago
    How do you prove whats in anothers heart? Its not provable. But if you dont try and figure it out, you can't understand the world. If you don't think its true, why not?
- hcurtiss 4y ago

bmitc 4y ago

Societal concerns cannot be deterministically determined via deductive logic. So, people who hide behind "this sounds logical to me", whether intentionally or not, just happen to agree with the specific logic used in that instance. When presented with other so-called logic, suddenly it's illogical.

csdvrx 4y ago
> just happen to agree with the specific logic used in that instance That's a very biased take. I think someone else said it better: what both the "progressive" and the "neocons" want is "a CCP-style political system as long as they're the ones in control" where "concepts like separation of powers and rule of law are merely obstacles to smash through on their road to utopia" It's very rare than unconstitutional power grants are clawed back, so personally I see what's happening right now as a good precedent: it says the executive and the administration can't just wish into existence new laws or power grants: they have to operate within their existing bounds. Deductive logic is totally applicable here. Otherwise, it gives you a situation where a president believes he can legally become judge, jury and executioner through executive order (pun intended) and order the army to execute US citizens by birthright through drone strikes. Just because they are enemy combatants or some other convenient legal fiction doesn't make it a-ok.

the_only_law 4y ago

> 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.

Semiapies 4y ago
Singular they goes back far enough in English that you can find it spelled with thorn, but of course people here know better.
philosopher1234 4y ago
I think you give HN too much credit. Not every topic evokes pedantry. HN has specific interests, and brings out nitpicking to advance specific causes.
lemmiwinks 4y ago
> People started a huge fight over whether the word "they" can refer to a single individual the other week. Link please?

spencerflem 4y ago

Thank you for saying this, i completly agree. It honestly makes me ashamed to be a programmer associating with this type of person whos completely incapable of understanding even the simplest social issue

Bostonian 4y ago
Intelligent people can disagree on abortion, gay marriage, gun control, and other issues. People on both sides of these issues can understand them but reach different conclusions based on their values.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

joshstrange 4y ago

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) and it's clear democracy is dying.

josephcsible 4y ago
How does land have power over people? States with more land don't have more representation than states with less land, but states with more people do have more representation than states with fewer people. As a concrete example, New Jersey has the same representation in the Senate and 12x the representation in the House as Alaska, despite only having 1% of the land of Alaska.
- joshstrange 4y ago
  Maybe that was badly phrased but it refers to states having more power than they should (or less) due to how the electoral college and senators work.
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    It was designed that way on purpose.
    - halostatue 4y ago
      Yes. To give the slave states power beyond their value.
      - robonerd 4y ago
        The value of those states was not in question when they threatened succession; they were important enough to fight a war over. Nor would many of the states have joined the union in the first place if not for this system, so America wouldn't have existed in the first place if you had your way. The entire country is premised on this compromise.

johndhi 4y ago

I, for one, wish the EPA (or some body) were empowered to do more than it does, but I also (to some degree) respect the logic of many conservative judicial opinions. Just sayin.

rayiner 4y ago

If that's your argument, then surely the proper approach is to criticize the Court for those instances where their logic isn't consistent, instead of when the logic is consistent. For example, Thomas vigorously dissented in Gonzales v. Raich, where Scalia voted to uphold federal marijuana restrictions as a proper exercise of the Commerce power. There is nothing wrong with judges having an "agenda" as long as that agenda rests on legal doctrine and philosophy, and not "outcomes."

philosopher1234 4y ago
It's interesting that you are bringing the conversation back to consistency when I explicitly said my POV is that consistency (here) is a red herring.
- rayiner 4y ago
  How can consistency possibly be a "red herring" when talking about judicial decisions?
  - philosopher1234 4y ago
    Suppose I’m a pro lifer for reasons I’m ashamed of. The supreme court strikes down roe v wade, and I’m secretly pleased, but can’t admit it. Wouldn’t it be nice to defend the decision by arguing about its consistency? It’s a red herring in these discussions because it’s not the true reason people support it.
    - remarkEon 4y ago
      I can't parse what this means. Is the idea that we are to assume malice of intent to the reasons the Court does things, and that "consistency" is not a legitimate reason to argue about it? How do you know what the "true" reason is?
      - philosopher1234 4y ago

itsoktocry 4y ago

>Their logic can be consistent and they can still be partisans, looking to implement a specific agenda. While your logic is consistent, unbiased, agenda-free and non-partisan. >because they support the outcomes these rulings enact. While the fact that you do not support these outcomes has no bearing in your opinions on the matter.

philosopher1234 4y ago
I never claimed either of those things. I am biased too. We are all biased. We should be discussing openly our opinions of these outcomes, not wasting time hiding behind procedural arguments.

lolinder 4y ago

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, yes, I support the outcomes of this ruling just as much as I support the reasoning. Congress needs to get its act together and legislate, not let the Executive branch make up rules to fill the void they've left.

th3byrdm4n 4y ago
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 4y ago
  [deleted]
Imnimo 4y ago
It strikes me as extremely naive to believe that this same precedent will be applied to agencies like the FBI and NSA. The supreme court is not an automaton bound by the laws of logic to act consistently.
cyanydeez 4y ago
The "creative" you speak of is a bullshit stance because congress isn't a computer, never will be, and all you're doing is not liking the outcome which is what the parent is explaining: rationalizing your bias after the fact. Others would say they are implementing the details of broad brushed Congressional laws.
abandonliberty 4y ago
So you're hoping pedantry will save us from climate change. Hopefully you live long enough to see how this turns out.

Buttons840 4y ago

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. [1]: I'm trying to find the source. Something to do with the commerce clause I think. There was a court case where the government clearly argued that even local actions inside the state count as interstate commerce. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn?wprov=sfla1

jaywalk 4y ago
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.
- Buttons840 4y ago
  What do you think of this article? https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/The-Supreme-Court-s-EPA-ruling-just-17277410.php 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?
  - jaywalk 4y ago

giantg2 4y ago

"I don't believe people on this site are too stupid to realize that, I believe they prefer not to, because they support the outcomes these rulings enact. And given that, we are in a lot of trouble." If what you're saying is true, then the same could be said if the rulings went the other way. Basically the whole system is an oligarchy and the winning side will claim legitimacy and logic, while the losing side complains about a lack thereof. So what is the solution? Edit: why disagree without discussion or providing the solution?

etherael 4y ago
Stop tyring to do everything through naked force and pursue market solutions that people adopt because it's economically advantageous for them to do so? Stop sending SWAT teams at people already trying to do this? (https://youtu.be/i4Hnv_ZJSQY?t=250 https://youtu.be/i4Hnv_ZJSQY?t=250) Everybody who looks hard enough knows that neither of these things will happen and we know why. That people ignore it or pretend otherwise is the real problem at the root of this whole situation.
- giantg2 4y ago
  Are you talking about capitalist or free market minarchy?
  - etherael 4y ago
    I am not talking about any particular political framework at all. I am trying to point out that if you start from that premise you prejudice the kinds of diagnoses and solutions to any potential problem you come up with. Which is of course the exact reason that the parties who stand to gain so much wealth and power from the exercise are so desperate that this should be the default, and why to the extent there is a problem that might be solved, quick, easy and relatively cheap direct voluntary action solutions need to be hit with SWAT raids lest the power and wealth that might be attained from nebulous, slow, difficult and extremely expensive solutions which are by contrast pushed by force upon the entire planet.

Seattle3503 4y ago

HN is by and large reactionary.

spencerflem 4y ago
I don't know why you're being downvoted, this is correct. Just offering my support and the knowledge that not all programmers are assholes with more money than sense and a smug superiority that comes from assuming the whole world is an algorithm. Just most of them.
- Sakos 4y ago
  I generally try to avoid HN discussions about politics, geopolitics or anything related to human society, because there are some ass-backwards, heartless, libertarian people here who don't care about how outcomes affect people as long as it happens to fit with their ideology. Seeing the responses here makes me feel justified. The only reason why I come back is because the technical discussions are incredibly good.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    The thing about libertarianism is it has done more good for more people than any other ideology. Note that libertarianism leaves people free to care for others as much as they want to.
    - spencerflem 4y ago
      i was having a nice time griping until you showed up. Given how libertarians seem completely unconcerned with raising wages or protecting the environment it seems that amount is 0
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        I am a libertarian, and if you're familiar with my postings, I have made many environment protecting proposals that would be much more effective than the current ones. Also for improving other facets of our lives, like wages. I know there are many libertarians who give the philosophy a bad name. If you have something specific you'd like to ask about it, I'll try to give a good answer.

ironman1478 4y ago

> I don't believe people on this site are too stupid to realize that, I believe they prefer not to, because they support the outcomes these rulings enact. HN is just a forum. Its not much different than Reddit, its just more moderated which I greatly appreciate. I think the people aren't stupid. Its just that people have grown up being told the Supreme Court was some non-partisan objective organization, when really is full of partisan hacks and law by very nature is political. Its hard to undo years of hearing the same thing.

spencerflem 4y ago
I just find it sad, because even Reddit got this one right. This is the most SCOTUS bootlicking ive seen in one thread and it's all done by programmers who are supposed to be my people y'know? Feels personal
- ironman1478 4y ago
  Being a programmer only implies one thing. That the person is a programmer. It has 0 correlation with other skills or thoughts. I used to be disappointed by this too, but people are multifaceted and being able to make a computer do something useful isn't correlated with being able to understand politics, be good at playing an instrument, etc. The people who are good at multiple things (or knowledgeable about multiple topics) are that way because they put in the work, just like they did for programming.
  - Semiapies 4y ago
    It's, unfortunately, correlated with people who think they are polymath geniuses because they know C or a Lisp.
  - spencerflem 4y ago
    thank you <3
- worker_person 4y ago
  There are conservative programmers. We just learn to keep our heads down. I spent a few years researching all viewpoints to figure out my position. Didn't realize I would be hated for thinking for myself.

Bostonian 4y ago

A counterexample to the idea that the Court is just trying to implement a right-wing agenda is just ruled 5-4 in BIDEN ET AL. v. TEXAS ET AL. that Biden could discontinue Trump's "remain in Mexico" immigration policy. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh. https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/Biden-v-Texas-06-30-2022.pdf https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/Biden-v-Texas-0...

jahewson 4y ago

I keep seeing this “if you disagree with me you must believe something really bad and I’m going to put those words into your mouth” rhetorical device around. Does it have a name? It’s tedious. The court’s position that the executive cannot unilaterally govern by bending the rules is a good thing! The problem is that the line they draw is arbitrary - and they just insert their agenda at the boundary. The perfect thus becomes the enemy of the good, because the court chose a questionable boundary and because the legislature is now responsible for passing the necessary laws - as they should. In reality, they won’t do that, but that’s not the court’s fault. Now you can certainly make the argument that the court should stick with the precedent of deferring to the executive instead of the legislature (laws after all, cannot anticipate everything and the court can avoid having to create arbitrary boundaries). But that’s a conversation that’s got nothing to do with climate change or any specific outcome. For comparison, how did you feel about the court deferring to the Trump executive? Was their rule bending something we want to see more of? If a liberal court broke with precedent in the same manner to restrict Trump from doing something crazy, would that be good?

car_analogy 4y ago

> The court hasn't completely prevented the EPA from making these regulations in the future - but says that Congress would have to clearly say it authorises this power. As someone that supports far harsher emissions regulations than were in effect even before this ruling, is it too much to ask that laws should be clear? As others have pointed out, there's no limit to the danger posed by letting the executive branch creatively interpret legislation.

ErikVandeWater 4y ago

One can read a ruling and see how many hoops the justices jumped through to get to a particular decision. Let me lead by saying I'm a pro choice person, and hope federal legislation is passed protecting abortion in all 50 states: Roe V. Wade is a good example. The justices didn't find any mention of "abortion", any description of abortion, or any medical procedure whatsoever in the constitution, or any mention of "trimesters". Yet they found by using a combination of no less than 5 amendments, that it in fact was protected, and then the supreme court decided exactly how long into a pregnancy abortion could be banned. They probably had consistent logic in what they said technically, but it strained credulity too much to believe they actually thought the constitution, in the text as it was written, protected a right to abortion. Would you agree the sword cuts both ways with regards to the statement: > I don't believe people on this site are too stupid to realize that, I believe they prefer not to, because they support the outcomes these rulings enact.

philosopher1234 4y ago
Yes I agree, I think its a universal human quality. And I think we should start talking about abortion directly, not through 50 layers of legaleze. The only way a pro-lifer on HN can express their opinion is indirectly, through technical criticism. But why can't they express their pro life opinion directly? Because people will disagree with them? The only thing people do on HN is disagree. This is the issue that needs exploring, not the intricacies of judicial logic.
- CptJupiterNorth 4y ago
  This community isn't what I thought it was, either. I'm new to commenting, and my account has negative karma because I said something true that the 2A people didn't like.
  - philosopher1234 4y ago
    Welcome. People aren't likely to lay their cards on the table, but this is a political place like anywhere else.

citilife 4y ago

There's a lot on this site that makes me question "what happened"? Growing up on the internet (IRC, Forums, eventually HN, etc) there was always a "hacker" or "libertarian" spirit. Less government ("the man"), less regulation, more freedom, more ability to create and inspire. Now, I see many people (often the same people) seemingly become hyper partisian when the Supreme Court saying "congress never authorized this, they'd need to to make this legal". All the recent court rulings have been very consistent that "the will of the people (congress) never approved this". IMO you're correct, the Supreme court is partisan. However, this feels far less partisan than normal and the reasoning seems to be sound (congress never implemented this law / passed an amendment / etc). In the courts opinions will often explain how to make it a law / legal. The shock I've experienced with the HN community is how it's been far less thoughtful as late (3-4 years) and discussions are suppressed / devolve quickly. The idea of the libertarian ethos of the "hacker" community, to me, appears dead. Now, I see a far less thoughtful, more partisan, more angry community. Even in your comment, you mention you "hate" the community (I'm assuming you mean just parts of it). It dismays me.

jxramos 4y ago

I don't think the name of the game is at the level of upholding consistent logic in and of itself but of defending the separation of powers granted to the three branches of government. You can think of it as analogous to programming architectural defensive tests enforcing the boundaries. This is at the level of governance design and protecting that design.

mcbrit 4y ago

It is well known that there are competing, consistent theories on how to interpret the Constitution. If we assume that each Justice subscribes to a consistent theory on how to interpret the Constitution, you omit a discussion (much less a proof) that at least one Justice's theory is 'partisan', that the theory being partisan would be bad, or to make a foundational move, that a theory that is nonpartisan exists. I think there are interesting discussions to be had on all of those topics. I think your post is too strongly worded, being a triple attack on the hn community, the Supreme Court, and the state of American politics.

vdnkh 4y ago

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.

thirtyfivecent 4y ago
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.
- vdnkh 4y ago
  Lol

Sakos 4y ago

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-epa/ 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. “Critics would say, ‘No, what’s happening is you’re taking power away from agencies, which have some degree of democratic accountability to the president, and you are actually granting the power to the courts, which are not democratically accountable at all.’” This is the first step in dismantling regulatory bodies on a federal level. I have no idea how people can be supportive of the decision. It seems insane to me.

spoils19 4y ago
- bberrry 4y ago
  Please be sarcastic
danielmarkbruce 4y ago
It might not be a good idea, but google search will turn up the logic behind opposition to the power of the regulatory agencies.
devwastaken 4y ago
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 name of the game for long standing organizations. That is, preserve the org first, not complete the mission. When you look into the deep history of federal corruption it's plain as day that it's overwhelmingly a political wheelhouse with only a sprinkle of objective. Federal agencies that were once founded in earnest are long taken over by this principle. The founders have left the building.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

datavirtue 4y ago

"A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself..." Simple. End of story. If the Supreme Court has one job it's punting shit to Congress--the appropriate branch.

Bhilai 4y ago

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 will simply not pass the senate because the only thing senate Republicans are apparently good at is blocking progress. So this double play on the part of right leaning commentators is really in bad faith. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/19/climate/supreme-court-climate-epa.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/19/climate/supreme-court-cli...

hellojesus 4y ago
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.
- patentatt 4y ago
  I would like to introduce you to Senator Joe Manchin. No substantive climate change legislation is going to pass the Senate. Stop pretending like it's possible.
- jpadkins 4y ago
  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.
scarmig 4y ago
This has to be seen as part of a broader program against the administrative state, although here it takes the contours of the climate debate. For the coming years you'll be seeing the same approach used in this decision to rip apart everything from labor regulations to HUD programs.