5 ms·

Comments like this, where someone who is directly involved and deeply knowledgable, randomly jumps in are why I love HN. People are so fixated on a result (in

Comments like this, where someone who is directly involved and deeply knowledgable, randomly jumps in are why I love HN. People are so fixated on a result (in this case lowering CO2 emissions) that they can't see past that to consider the actual fundamental legal principles of court decisions, especially supreme court ones. I see this as a failure of our legislative branch, they are incapable of legislating effectively and people look to the courts to achieve their desired ends. Moreover it seems like people don't consider the negative effects if courts decided cases in the other direction (e.g. how federal agencies could abuse their authority if Chevron had been upheld). I try to read the actual decisions, especially for Supreme Court ones, especially when I superficially disagree with the result and I very rarely end up disagreeing with the decisions. It's bizarre to me how the media only reports on how they disagree with the result (which is a legitimate opinion) and completely fail to discuss, debate or report on the legal theory behind the decision, they commonly seem to not even report on the actual legal question being decided! I have never seen a single mainstream news article which correctly casts blame on congress for failing to legislate effectively or unambiguously.

giantg2 2y ago
"It's bizarre to me how the media only reports on how they disagree with the result (which is a legitimate opinion) and completely fail to discuss, debate or report on the legal theory behind the decision" In a lot of cases, they do more than that and outright misrepresent it.
- AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
  I was trying to soften my opinion. I very much agree with you.
ant6n 2y ago
> I see this as a failure of our legislative branch, they are incapable of legislating effectively and people look to the courts to achieve their desired ends. Uh, the US has a deeply dysfunctional system. It covers most aspects of governance, judiciary, legislative, electoral system, the fifth estate. It’s entirely reasonable people are only concerned with outcomes, and not process.
- NotYourLawyer 2y ago
  The federal judiciary is far less dysfunctional than the other branches.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  The US is not deeply dysfunctional. Some amount of friction is built in to put the brakes on any sudden outcropping of nonsense from any single element of government.
  - AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
    While I agree with you in principle, that the friction is "as designed," I still say our system is broken -- even when there are things which a supermajority of people agree on, our legislators are unable to craft solutions which align which the majority of people agree with, without inserting things which are designed to cater to tiny minority special interests, which can effectively "poison pill" a bill so that nobody likes it (even if it's passed). Alternatively, we pass giant tomes of legislation (esp budgets) which literally nobody can understand let alone agree on.
    - nradov 2y ago
      What are those things on which a supermajority of people agree, including implementation details and funding sources? Everyone wants more free stuff from the government. No one wants to pay higher taxes.
    - gunapologist99 2y ago
      If a supermajority of people agree on both the purpose and implementation of anything, then their elected representatives will easily come to an agreement as well. That's literally how laws get passed. Conversely, not passing laws is a feature, not a bug. > Alternatively, we pass giant tomes of legislation (esp budgets) which literally nobody can understand let alone agree on. I agree. These massive laws are rushed through precisely because leadership knows that people won't have enough time for debate, let alone in proper order.
mullingitover 2y ago
> Moreover it seems like people don't consider the negative effects if courts decided cases in the other direction (e.g. how federal agencies could abuse their authority if Chevron had been upheld). We don't need to hypothesize, Chevron was the law of the land for most of our lifetimes until the self-appointed Supreme Court super-legislature intervened. Arguably Chevron itself was the courts recognizing established legislative function with federal agencies that had existed for decades prior. We can see exactly how federal agencies would or would not abuse their authority, and congress really didn't have a problem with the situation as evidenced by the the absence of legislation to change the arrangement. The legislative failure is really that congress hasn't immediately drafted new legislation to reverse this brazen power grab, discipline the rogue justices, and reform the Supreme Court back into its place as an apolitical branch.
- abigail95 2y ago
  how can we interpret that the legislature doesn't have a problem with chevron because they didn't draft countering legislation, but take the opposite approach when they don't draft countering legislation in the opposite case?
  - mullingitover 2y ago
    The former status quo existed for about four decades, the new for about a month. I don't think we can read much into it at this point.
- AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
  > We can see exactly how federal agencies would or would not abuse their authority I would argue that federal agencies have absolutely spent those decades abusing their authority.
  - mullingitover 2y ago
    It must be a relief that instead of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats interpreting highly technical implementations of vague statutes, we'll now have unelected, unaccountable judges doing it.
yowzadave 2y ago
> I try to read the actual decisions, especially for Supreme Court ones, especially when I superficially disagree with the result and I very rarely end up disagreeing with the decisions. Are you equally persuaded by the dissenting opinions? It seems likely that you’ve been fooled by a bunch of lawyers, who are smart and highly trained at making plausible-sounding arguments for whatever their clients require. Constitutional law is political. The Supreme Court is recruited and appointed for their political loyalties, and to a large extent their decisions conform to their political alignment. To treat their arguments seriously about which side is correctly interpreting a very old, very ambiguous document can be an interesting academic exercise, but it misses the point about what they are actually doing.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think it would be more accurate to say they are appointed based on their ideology than politics. I don't think it is possible to have judges without legal ideology because it is an inherent part of the subject.
refurb 2y ago
> they can't see past that to consider the actual fundamental legal principles of court decisions Precisely. The court isn't ruling about CO2 emissions, it's ruling how the government operates within the confines of our constitutional system. If Congress fails to pass a law that correctly empowers an administrative body to regulate X, then that regulatory body should be prevented from regulating X. The issue then gets kicked back to Congress, where their job is to refine the law to address its deficiencies. The idea that Congress can pass overly broad laws that administrative bodies can then independently interpret that are outside the ability to challenge in a court of law seems like a terrible system.
Varriount 2y ago
Which decisions have you read?

giantg2 2y ago

"It's bizarre to me how the media only reports on how they disagree with the result (which is a legitimate opinion) and completely fail to discuss, debate or report on the legal theory behind the decision" In a lot of cases, they do more than that and outright misrepresent it.

AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
I was trying to soften my opinion. I very much agree with you.

ant6n 2y ago

> I see this as a failure of our legislative branch, they are incapable of legislating effectively and people look to the courts to achieve their desired ends. Uh, the US has a deeply dysfunctional system. It covers most aspects of governance, judiciary, legislative, electoral system, the fifth estate. It’s entirely reasonable people are only concerned with outcomes, and not process.

NotYourLawyer 2y ago
The federal judiciary is far less dysfunctional than the other branches.
wakawaka28 2y ago
The US is not deeply dysfunctional. Some amount of friction is built in to put the brakes on any sudden outcropping of nonsense from any single element of government.
- AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
  While I agree with you in principle, that the friction is "as designed," I still say our system is broken -- even when there are things which a supermajority of people agree on, our legislators are unable to craft solutions which align which the majority of people agree with, without inserting things which are designed to cater to tiny minority special interests, which can effectively "poison pill" a bill so that nobody likes it (even if it's passed). Alternatively, we pass giant tomes of legislation (esp budgets) which literally nobody can understand let alone agree on.
  - nradov 2y ago
    What are those things on which a supermajority of people agree, including implementation details and funding sources? Everyone wants more free stuff from the government. No one wants to pay higher taxes.
  - gunapologist99 2y ago
    If a supermajority of people agree on both the purpose and implementation of anything, then their elected representatives will easily come to an agreement as well. That's literally how laws get passed. Conversely, not passing laws is a feature, not a bug. > Alternatively, we pass giant tomes of legislation (esp budgets) which literally nobody can understand let alone agree on. I agree. These massive laws are rushed through precisely because leadership knows that people won't have enough time for debate, let alone in proper order.

mullingitover 2y ago

> Moreover it seems like people don't consider the negative effects if courts decided cases in the other direction (e.g. how federal agencies could abuse their authority if Chevron had been upheld). We don't need to hypothesize, Chevron was the law of the land for most of our lifetimes until the self-appointed Supreme Court super-legislature intervened. Arguably Chevron itself was the courts recognizing established legislative function with federal agencies that had existed for decades prior. We can see exactly how federal agencies would or would not abuse their authority, and congress really didn't have a problem with the situation as evidenced by the the absence of legislation to change the arrangement. The legislative failure is really that congress hasn't immediately drafted new legislation to reverse this brazen power grab, discipline the rogue justices, and reform the Supreme Court back into its place as an apolitical branch.

abigail95 2y ago
how can we interpret that the legislature doesn't have a problem with chevron because they didn't draft countering legislation, but take the opposite approach when they don't draft countering legislation in the opposite case?
- mullingitover 2y ago
  The former status quo existed for about four decades, the new for about a month. I don't think we can read much into it at this point.
AdamJacobMuller 2y ago
> We can see exactly how federal agencies would or would not abuse their authority I would argue that federal agencies have absolutely spent those decades abusing their authority.
- mullingitover 2y ago
  It must be a relief that instead of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats interpreting highly technical implementations of vague statutes, we'll now have unelected, unaccountable judges doing it.

yowzadave 2y ago

> I try to read the actual decisions, especially for Supreme Court ones, especially when I superficially disagree with the result and I very rarely end up disagreeing with the decisions. Are you equally persuaded by the dissenting opinions? It seems likely that you’ve been fooled by a bunch of lawyers, who are smart and highly trained at making plausible-sounding arguments for whatever their clients require. Constitutional law is political. The Supreme Court is recruited and appointed for their political loyalties, and to a large extent their decisions conform to their political alignment. To treat their arguments seriously about which side is correctly interpreting a very old, very ambiguous document can be an interesting academic exercise, but it misses the point about what they are actually doing.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think it would be more accurate to say they are appointed based on their ideology than politics. I don't think it is possible to have judges without legal ideology because it is an inherent part of the subject.

refurb 2y ago

> they can't see past that to consider the actual fundamental legal principles of court decisions Precisely. The court isn't ruling about CO2 emissions, it's ruling how the government operates within the confines of our constitutional system. If Congress fails to pass a law that correctly empowers an administrative body to regulate X, then that regulatory body should be prevented from regulating X. The issue then gets kicked back to Congress, where their job is to refine the law to address its deficiencies. The idea that Congress can pass overly broad laws that administrative bodies can then independently interpret that are outside the ability to challenge in a court of law seems like a terrible system.

Varriount 2y ago

Which decisions have you read?