5 ms·

Go New Jersey! Now get Texas and California on board so car companies don't bother offering these in the country at all

Hamuko 4y ago
Aren't they suing California now for having "too strict" of emissions regulations because California's position in the marketplace makes it so that their rules become de facto law of the land? If that goes through, I'm not really sure if California can do really any automotive regulation that other states won't like.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dfxm12 4y ago
    - zeroonetwothree 4y ago
      Both parties support federalism when it suits their platform and not otherwise.
      - p0pcult 4y ago
    - leereeves 4y ago
      > in a nation where, on aggregate, their platform is unpopular Many polls report that the Republicans are more popular than the Democrats at the moment.[1] Sadly, refusing to acknowledge the existence of differing views seems to be rather common these days. 1: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-...
      - jedberg 4y ago
        That's the congressional vote, which suffers from gerrymandering. In raw numbers, far more people support the Democrats than the Republicans.
        leereeves 4y ago
        It's the generic congressional vote, which is simply the percent of people polled who prefer either party. It's analogous to the popular vote for President, not the percent of seats either party is predicted to win.
        Retric 4y ago
        Many races only have candidates from a single party. Which discards votes in any such count not just from the election tallies but also likely voters.
        leereeves 4y ago
        Pollsters know that, so they phrase questions to avoid the issue, like: "Would you rather see the Republicans or the Democrats in control of Congress, or doesn’t this matter to you?" (from Monmouth)
        Retric 4y ago
        That doesn’t help when you ask if someone is a likely voter and they say no because of who’s running. Granted it doesn’t say it’s asking likely voters, but somehow they got 95% of responses say they are registered voters when only 50% of Americans are registered voters. (Page 8) https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_us_102022.pdf/ https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmout...
        leereeves 4y ago
        > somehow they got 95% of responses say they are registered voters That's 95% of people who are old enough to respond to the poll (under 18 are excluded without reporting) and don't hang up. I don't find it strange that people who aren't registered to vote hang up without responding to the poll.
    - merely-unlikely 4y ago
      > they simply don't care about that Or don't feel there is a better choice. The biggest oligopoly in the US is in politics.
    - treeman79 4y ago
      Conservative principles are far more popular than the left wing dogma. Abortion on day of birth Secure boarders Lower taxes and regulations. Personal responsibility vs government handouts Crime Boys in girls sports. Discus actual issues and many democrats will be shocked they they are in the wrong party. But hey, endless personal attacks is a strategy as well.
    - wernercd 4y ago
      Flip that: Democrats focus is on tyranny of the majority so that a few big cities can rule a nation that doesn't want to live by rules that are destroying places like New York and LA. It's not that we don't care... it's that we know why our system was setup the way it is. Because only an idiot supports "Pure Democracy" - we don't have pure democracy for many reasons. You simply don't care to admit those reasons and address the problems with pure democracy.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  At least with something like this, it would be relatively simple for the manufacturers to just enable the functionality based on where the car is sold. Can't do anything like that with emissions regulations.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    You totally can. VW's emissions cheating scandal was about the ECU firmware tuning the engine for lower emissions when it detected an emissions test and then switching back to tuning for performance the rest of the time. No reason you couldn't do the same but based on location.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - Bilal_io 4y ago
    I can see them attempting that, but it'll give legislatures in other states an incentive to make it law as well, simply from the view of "look they're treating us different" which usually pissed people off more than when everyone is treated shitty but equally.
  - acomjean 4y ago
    Kia and Subaru do that in Massachusetts with some features (remote start). They blame "right to repair" laws we have on the books.. https://www.techdirt.com/2022/02/07/kia-subaru-disable-useful-car-features-blames-mass-right-to-repair-law/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/02/07/kia-subaru-disable-usefu...
- giantg2 4y ago
  If they can sue someone over growing their own wheat, they can sue over just about anything with even a tenuous link to commercial activity.
  - mminer237 4y ago
    Wickard v. Filburn was about the federal legislature's jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause: https://matthewminer.name/law/briefs/2L/1st+Semester/LAW+531-001+%E2%80%93+Constitutional+Law+I/Wickard+v.+Filburn https://matthewminer.name/law/briefs/2L/1st+Semester/LAW+531... Presumably automakers are suing California for the inverse thereof—the Dormant Commerce Clause—à la Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, saying such authority is actually reserved exclusively to the federal government as an exception to states' general police powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause
  - treeman79 4y ago
    Commerce clause has been abused to hell and back. Peoples heads will fall off if the Supreme Court starts undoing all its prior decisions that rely on it.
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    Filburn grew wheat for sale and in excess of the production controls, intending to profit from the wheat he sold while also maintaining his own supply. The connection to interstate commerce was based on the totality of the wheat he grew, not just the excess portion of it that he claimed wasn't part of interstate commerce. And notably, despite all FUD to the contrary, subsistence farming of wheat for personal/non-commercial consumption was legal at the time. That's why they had there was a threshold in the first place; to protect non-commercial wheat farming.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- humanistbot 4y ago
  The Supreme Court just heard arguments in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross [1], which is challenging California's law that pork sold in California must follow certain animal welfare / health & safety standards. A big debate is over whether it was genuinely a health & safety standard versus a purely 'moralistic' law that is seeking to de-facto regulate other states. The issue is called the "Dormant Commerce Clause" [2], which is the idea that one state can't place "undue burdens" on interstate commerce. California can't just ban all imports from Texas, or vice versa. But courts have generally upheld health and safety laws, like California's car emissions laws or Hawaii's very strict agricultural products import restrictions --- but only if it is narrowly-tailored and there is a compelling state interest. Hawaii has a very compelling state interest in keeping its unique biodiversity, while California has a compelling state interest in keeping the valley of asphalt known as Los Angeles free of smog. There isn't really a good bright line test or definition in existing precedent of what "compelling state interest" means when it must be balanced against "balkanization" [3] by these kinds of laws, so many are hoping SCOTUS uses this case to make a clear definition. But it is likely that this kind of law would be seen more as a morality regulation than health and safety. California argued that it was not an attempt to legislate moral issues in other states, but more of a health and safety regulation: > Mongan [California state solicitor] pushed back on some of the hypotheticals about state laws that would condition the sale of products on a company’s general health care or labor practices. He told Barrett that Proposition 12 is “focused on the production of goods that are coming into” California, rather than on company-wide policies. “I think we would all recognize,” Mongan said, that it would be problematic if states can condition the sales of those products on restrictions of wholly unrelated out-of-state purchasers.” [3] [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-pork-producers-council-v-ross/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-pork-pr... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause [3] https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/california-law-on-sale-of-pork-raises-concerns-about-interstate-moral-disputes-in-a-balkanized-nation/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/california-law-on-sale-of...

Aren't they suing California now for having "too strict" of emissions regulations because California's position in the marketplace makes it so that their rules become de facto law of the land? If that goes through, I'm not really sure if California can do really any automotive regulation that other states won't like.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dfxm12 4y ago
  - zeroonetwothree 4y ago
    Both parties support federalism when it suits their platform and not otherwise.
    - p0pcult 4y ago
  - leereeves 4y ago
    > in a nation where, on aggregate, their platform is unpopular Many polls report that the Republicans are more popular than the Democrats at the moment.[1] Sadly, refusing to acknowledge the existence of differing views seems to be rather common these days. 1: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-...
    - jedberg 4y ago
      That's the congressional vote, which suffers from gerrymandering. In raw numbers, far more people support the Democrats than the Republicans.
      - leereeves 4y ago
        It's the generic congressional vote, which is simply the percent of people polled who prefer either party. It's analogous to the popular vote for President, not the percent of seats either party is predicted to win.
        Retric 4y ago
        Many races only have candidates from a single party. Which discards votes in any such count not just from the election tallies but also likely voters.
        leereeves 4y ago
        Pollsters know that, so they phrase questions to avoid the issue, like: "Would you rather see the Republicans or the Democrats in control of Congress, or doesn’t this matter to you?" (from Monmouth)
        Retric 4y ago
        That doesn’t help when you ask if someone is a likely voter and they say no because of who’s running. Granted it doesn’t say it’s asking likely voters, but somehow they got 95% of responses say they are registered voters when only 50% of Americans are registered voters. (Page 8) https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_us_102022.pdf/ https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmout...
        leereeves 4y ago
        > somehow they got 95% of responses say they are registered voters That's 95% of people who are old enough to respond to the poll (under 18 are excluded without reporting) and don't hang up. I don't find it strange that people who aren't registered to vote hang up without responding to the poll.
  - merely-unlikely 4y ago
    > they simply don't care about that Or don't feel there is a better choice. The biggest oligopoly in the US is in politics.
  - treeman79 4y ago
    Conservative principles are far more popular than the left wing dogma. Abortion on day of birth Secure boarders Lower taxes and regulations. Personal responsibility vs government handouts Crime Boys in girls sports. Discus actual issues and many democrats will be shocked they they are in the wrong party. But hey, endless personal attacks is a strategy as well.
  - wernercd 4y ago
    Flip that: Democrats focus is on tyranny of the majority so that a few big cities can rule a nation that doesn't want to live by rules that are destroying places like New York and LA. It's not that we don't care... it's that we know why our system was setup the way it is. Because only an idiot supports "Pure Democracy" - we don't have pure democracy for many reasons. You simply don't care to admit those reasons and address the problems with pure democracy.
jaywalk 4y ago
At least with something like this, it would be relatively simple for the manufacturers to just enable the functionality based on where the car is sold. Can't do anything like that with emissions regulations.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  You totally can. VW's emissions cheating scandal was about the ECU firmware tuning the engine for lower emissions when it detected an emissions test and then switching back to tuning for performance the rest of the time. No reason you couldn't do the same but based on location.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Bilal_io 4y ago
  I can see them attempting that, but it'll give legislatures in other states an incentive to make it law as well, simply from the view of "look they're treating us different" which usually pissed people off more than when everyone is treated shitty but equally.
- acomjean 4y ago
  Kia and Subaru do that in Massachusetts with some features (remote start). They blame "right to repair" laws we have on the books.. https://www.techdirt.com/2022/02/07/kia-subaru-disable-useful-car-features-blames-mass-right-to-repair-law/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/02/07/kia-subaru-disable-usefu...
giantg2 4y ago
If they can sue someone over growing their own wheat, they can sue over just about anything with even a tenuous link to commercial activity.
- mminer237 4y ago
  Wickard v. Filburn was about the federal legislature's jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause: https://matthewminer.name/law/briefs/2L/1st+Semester/LAW+531-001+%E2%80%93+Constitutional+Law+I/Wickard+v.+Filburn https://matthewminer.name/law/briefs/2L/1st+Semester/LAW+531... Presumably automakers are suing California for the inverse thereof—the Dormant Commerce Clause—à la Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, saying such authority is actually reserved exclusively to the federal government as an exception to states' general police powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause
- treeman79 4y ago
  Commerce clause has been abused to hell and back. Peoples heads will fall off if the Supreme Court starts undoing all its prior decisions that rely on it.
- gamblor956 4y ago
  Filburn grew wheat for sale and in excess of the production controls, intending to profit from the wheat he sold while also maintaining his own supply. The connection to interstate commerce was based on the totality of the wheat he grew, not just the excess portion of it that he claimed wasn't part of interstate commerce. And notably, despite all FUD to the contrary, subsistence farming of wheat for personal/non-commercial consumption was legal at the time. That's why they had there was a threshold in the first place; to protect non-commercial wheat farming.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
humanistbot 4y ago
The Supreme Court just heard arguments in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross [1], which is challenging California's law that pork sold in California must follow certain animal welfare / health & safety standards. A big debate is over whether it was genuinely a health & safety standard versus a purely 'moralistic' law that is seeking to de-facto regulate other states. The issue is called the "Dormant Commerce Clause" [2], which is the idea that one state can't place "undue burdens" on interstate commerce. California can't just ban all imports from Texas, or vice versa. But courts have generally upheld health and safety laws, like California's car emissions laws or Hawaii's very strict agricultural products import restrictions --- but only if it is narrowly-tailored and there is a compelling state interest. Hawaii has a very compelling state interest in keeping its unique biodiversity, while California has a compelling state interest in keeping the valley of asphalt known as Los Angeles free of smog. There isn't really a good bright line test or definition in existing precedent of what "compelling state interest" means when it must be balanced against "balkanization" [3] by these kinds of laws, so many are hoping SCOTUS uses this case to make a clear definition. But it is likely that this kind of law would be seen more as a morality regulation than health and safety. California argued that it was not an attempt to legislate moral issues in other states, but more of a health and safety regulation: > Mongan [California state solicitor] pushed back on some of the hypotheticals about state laws that would condition the sale of products on a company’s general health care or labor practices. He told Barrett that Proposition 12 is “focused on the production of goods that are coming into” California, rather than on company-wide policies. “I think we would all recognize,” Mongan said, that it would be problematic if states can condition the sales of those products on restrictions of wholly unrelated out-of-state purchasers.” [3] [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-pork-producers-council-v-ross/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-pork-pr... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause [3] https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/california-law-on-sale-of-pork-raises-concerns-about-interstate-moral-disputes-in-a-balkanized-nation/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/california-law-on-sale-of...