Hacker News Reader

Comment by citilife | Hacker News Reader

Yes, the dog would still have four.

The Supreme Courts job is to determine if something was legal, they were granted the authority by the people. If we want to change that, congress (the people's representation) can amend the constitution.

Congress can also clarify by granted the authority (as the justices explained). At any point in the last 7 years (while this court case has been ongoing), congress could have enacted the laws, they discussed them. The regulations didn't pass. The supreme court pointed that out.

Why would congress put forth these rules if they had already granted the EPA the authorization? -- because the EPA never had such authority.

View on HN

> The Supreme Courts job is to determine if something was legal, they were granted the authority by the people

No, they invented that authority for themselves in Marbury v. Madison[1]. Judicial review, the idea that SCOTUS can decide whether the actions of the executive or legislative branch are legal, is contained nowhere in the constitution.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Well, the constitution grants the judiciary branch the final say on all cases of legality. So I don't think it's very controversial that they also have the final say on the legality of the legislative and executive branch's doings.

Also of course, this is exactly the separation of powers, which is completely fundamental in all western societies.

Obviously it's not controversial now because that's how things have been done for more than 200 years, but the Constitution is far from explicit that they have that power.

How do you read Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution?

My reading is that it gives authority to federal courts to determine if a law has or has not been violated. What would the other intent be of creating a judicial branch? (Not said with snark, just curious).

"You give (a) Authority to a system of federal courts to judge whether or not a law has been violated..."[1]

[1] Findlay, B.A. and Findlay, E.B., 1919. Your Rugged Constitution: How Americas House of Freedom is Planned and Built. -.

That's certainly how SCOTUS interpreted it, and a 200 year tradition of interpreting it that has made it so that most people will now interpret it that way, but "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court" hardly makes it clear that they get to decide the powers of the other two branches.

Devils advocate, if not the Supreme Court, then whom?

Congress makes a law. The Executive branch executes the law. The Supreme Court interprets whether that law was broken during its execution.

If you take out that third leg, is the assumption that Congress must revoke the law to provide a check/balance? What if the intent was good, but the execution was bad?

Maybe they thought States would remain strong and step up to the plate?

There is the 9th and 10th amendment that do not seem to get much coverage in court rulings.

Can you elaborate on your point?

The 9th amendment is made to ensure the federal govt doesn't have sway over unspecified rights; is your thought that the States would enumerate those rights separately?

In any event, I suspect you're right. It seems like the the balance of power may be more biased than the founders intended.

My thought on the 9th would be that it would not limit our rights in any way and by that same thought not allow an all powerful state or federal government from encroaching on any right we may have not enumerated.

The balance of power has definitely changed since the countries founding. If you read about the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, you don't see states doing this anymore.

This is parliamentary supremacy. The third leg would be people replacing the legislature.

That would put a check on those who write the laws, but it still leaves no check against the poor execution of those laws.

Sounds like a good system until the Federalist Society and a generation of Christian judicial activism showed up and gave us a handful of partisan judges.

I've asked elsewhere, but is there valid evidence (like statistical evidence within a reasonable level of uncertainty) that the courts are not apolitical? I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case, it's just that I've never seen it presented as anything other than anecdotal.

If so, what's the solution? Term-limits on judges? But then doesn't that ensure they will be even more politicized?

> The Supreme Courts job is to determine if something was legal, they were granted the authority by the people

:laughcryemoji

> Congress can also clarify by granted the authority (as the justices explained). At any point in the last 7 years (while this court case has been ongoing), congress could have enacted the laws, they discussed them.

There's no need to explicitly grant authority for authority already granted. If Congress wanted to change the scope of the EPA's authority, Congress could just as well have passed a law stripping the EPA of that authority. It didn't.

Congress has been totally broken for years, now the Supreme Court will be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com