Hacker News Reader

Comment by OutOfHere | Hacker News Reader

I am really not a fan of the current Supreme Court, but this looks to be a good ruling. Agencies get carried away by their power, and this power requires stronger checks by real courts, not by the fake agency courts that always rule in favor of the agency. I make no judgment on how this ruling will be used or abused.

View on HN

To continue, although people will complain about the risk of environmental harm from this ruling, this harm is more a function of easy loans to companies that emit pollution. If you were change the money supply back to being gold-backed, the easy loans go away, the "growth at all costs" mantra dials back, and the ongoing environmental harm thereby modulates itself. It is the root cause of the unsustainable growth and environmental evils we see.

Also its funny because the original Chevron case was about how under Reagan the EPA re-interpreted the Clean Air Act to make it easier for companies to introduce new pollution sources. The EPA was sued and the lower courts backed the original interpretation of the Clean Air Act. This was overturned by the Supreme Court in the Chevron decision which said the courts must defer to the EPA's new interpretation.

So the environmental impacts of this decision are hardly clear cut.

So, I don’t think I’ve seen this language used, but does this basically end the use of “executive orders”? That’s what executive orders were right, advice to agencies on how to interpret laws?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com