5 ms·

Supreme Court’s EPA Decision: Unconstitutional Violation of Separation of Powers

12 points by car 4y ago

sofixa 4y ago
I find it curious that the same pattern as the abortion decision repeats. The initial decision post on HN gets high in the top, is wildly discussed, with lots of armchair lawyers chiming in (making it obviously something that "piques one's interest"). However any of the follow-up posts, with interpretations from media/experts/whatever gets flagged to death. Why? Apparently the topic was interesting enough for HN.
- hulitu 4y ago
  Some people don't like opinions. They just want to be told what to do. Especially when it comes together with a salary.
- atwood22 4y ago
  HN tries to be a forum for topics that aren’t widely discussed elsewhere. There are plenty of other places to discuss politics.
  - car 4y ago
    My impetus in posting this article was in hoping for intelligent discourse with the people of HN whose differentiated opinions I value. I consider the system of laws that we use to govern ourselves similar to the logic of code. I want to understand how this "OS" of our society works in controlling access to power, how it's being hacked and abused, and where its vulnerabilities are. Consider for example that the Nazis were able to legally take over the Weimar Republic, based on the first iteration of a democratic constitution of Germany. This constitution was put in place after Germany lost WWI, and it didn't hold up to the political assault. The EPA case appears to undermine the separation of powers, a crucial aspect of democracy to prevent abuse of power. The last paragraph: In the constitutional crisis we are entering, the court combines all three powers—legislative, executive, and judicial—to limit the scope of federal power. It exercises legislative power by rewriting statutes to remove authorities and structures it doesn’t like. It exercises executive power by interfering in the executive branch’s administrative process before final action is ripe for review. And it exercises judicial power by freeing private parties from government health and safety regulations. As James Madison, French philosopher Montesquieu, and even Roberts himself have noted, such a combination of powers creates the risk of tyranny. It enables an unelected body to exercise arbitrary and unaccountable power. The real threat to republican government today is not the administrative state. It is the court.
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  > The conservative justices' ruling limits the government's ability to combat climate change while also hamstringing our democracy. There's no point in discussing such an article. The Supreme Court does not exist to push progressive political agendas along, nor does it exist to enact social change of any kind. It's only role is interpreting the United States' founding documents. The article assumes a purpose for the Court that should never have existed to begin with. In other words, these recent decisions are not political in and of themselves, but are mere reversions to the mean.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    Reversions of decisions taken decades ago by the same court. Maintaining them isn't "progressive", it's "conservative" by the definitions of those two words. Overturning them is regressive, downright reactionary.
hackeraccount 4y ago
In the long term this decision is better for regulation. Anything that a president gets the EPA to do can be undone by a president that disagrees with them. By it's nature the presidency is unitary - so any president will find it difficult to compromise with itself. Congress on the other hand - even the House though less so then the Senate - requires compromise, requires some degree of buy in from all parties involved. This means less sweeping action - but anything that does get done will have advantages to a larger majority. Those supporting it will have an interest in it continuing because they will have been given something for their vote.

12 points by car 4y ago

I find it curious that the same pattern as the abortion decision repeats. The initial decision post on HN gets high in the top, is wildly discussed, with lots of armchair lawyers chiming in (making it obviously something that "piques one's interest"). However any of the follow-up posts, with interpretations from media/experts/whatever gets flagged to death. Why? Apparently the topic was interesting enough for HN.

hulitu 4y ago
Some people don't like opinions. They just want to be told what to do. Especially when it comes together with a salary.
atwood22 4y ago
HN tries to be a forum for topics that aren’t widely discussed elsewhere. There are plenty of other places to discuss politics.
- car 4y ago
  My impetus in posting this article was in hoping for intelligent discourse with the people of HN whose differentiated opinions I value. I consider the system of laws that we use to govern ourselves similar to the logic of code. I want to understand how this "OS" of our society works in controlling access to power, how it's being hacked and abused, and where its vulnerabilities are. Consider for example that the Nazis were able to legally take over the Weimar Republic, based on the first iteration of a democratic constitution of Germany. This constitution was put in place after Germany lost WWI, and it didn't hold up to the political assault. The EPA case appears to undermine the separation of powers, a crucial aspect of democracy to prevent abuse of power. The last paragraph: In the constitutional crisis we are entering, the court combines all three powers—legislative, executive, and judicial—to limit the scope of federal power. It exercises legislative power by rewriting statutes to remove authorities and structures it doesn’t like. It exercises executive power by interfering in the executive branch’s administrative process before final action is ripe for review. And it exercises judicial power by freeing private parties from government health and safety regulations. As James Madison, French philosopher Montesquieu, and even Roberts himself have noted, such a combination of powers creates the risk of tyranny. It enables an unelected body to exercise arbitrary and unaccountable power. The real threat to republican government today is not the administrative state. It is the court.
nathanaldensr 4y ago
> The conservative justices' ruling limits the government's ability to combat climate change while also hamstringing our democracy. There's no point in discussing such an article. The Supreme Court does not exist to push progressive political agendas along, nor does it exist to enact social change of any kind. It's only role is interpreting the United States' founding documents. The article assumes a purpose for the Court that should never have existed to begin with. In other words, these recent decisions are not political in and of themselves, but are mere reversions to the mean.
- sofixa 4y ago
  Reversions of decisions taken decades ago by the same court. Maintaining them isn't "progressive", it's "conservative" by the definitions of those two words. Overturning them is regressive, downright reactionary.

hackeraccount 4y ago

In the long term this decision is better for regulation. Anything that a president gets the EPA to do can be undone by a president that disagrees with them. By it's nature the presidency is unitary - so any president will find it difficult to compromise with itself. Congress on the other hand - even the House though less so then the Senate - requires compromise, requires some degree of buy in from all parties involved. This means less sweeping action - but anything that does get done will have advantages to a larger majority. Those supporting it will have an interest in it continuing because they will have been given something for their vote.