…with a win on the EPA, at least. A bit of a mild win, but at least the scoreboard isn’t empty.
The Supreme Court overturned the Obama administration’s landmark air quality rule on Monday, ruling the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not properly consider the costs of the regulation.
In a 5-4 ruling, the justices ruled that the EPA should have taken into account the costs to utilities and others in the power sector before even deciding whether to set limits for the toxic air pollutants it regulated in 2011.
Ach, well. Moral of the story? There should* be a moratorium on Supreme Court nominations in this year or the next. We had a couple of liberal Supreme Court judges today insist the Eighth Amendment forbids the death penalty even though the Fifth Amendment specifically and explicitly allows for the death penalty and both Amendments were passed at the same time. I have no further interest in humoring their delusions.
Moe Lane
*Yes, this time I will concede that there’s little to no chance of that happening. But I refuse to just shut up – or give up – about my opinions, simply because I know I’m going to be overruled. I consider succumbing to that to be a moral weakness, and I already have a full slate of those, thanks.
The most interesting case, to me, was the elections case out of Arizona. I am particularly enjoying the cognitive dissonance of watching Chief Justice Roberts castigate the Court’s majority for interpreting the Elections Clause of the Constitution in such a way that “the Legislature” can also mean “the people”…
.
…and this just days after he hands down the decision in Obergefelt, where he saved the ACA by saying that “established by the State” could mean “established by the State or the Secretary,” if that was what was necessary to save the law.
.
Roberts, meet Ginsburg. Ginsburg, this is Roberts. You may know each other better as Pot and Kettle.
I will again note that, while the King v Burwell decision obviously centered on a *lie* (as you note) it was much better than anything Notorious RBG would have written, had Roberts voted with the conservatives and assigned the decision to her .. as many expected would happen.
.
Remember, as chief, Roberts votes last (he *knew* it was 3/5 before he voted ..) and assigns writing responsibility.
.
That’s why, although it isn’t a *win*, it does contain some precious-metal and useful-metal linings.
.
Mew
All true. Still doesn’t save him from the hypocrisy. (Better, perhaps, to have voted the other way, and assigned writing responsibility to Kennedy. Then we could blame him for BOTH terrible decisions. But who knows what machinations lurk in the heart of a Supreme Court Chief Justice?)
You want truth, justice, and the american way.. and you think that’d be better?
.
I’d prefer truth, justice, etc. myself, but ….. I’ll take this over “honorable loss”, eh?
.
Mew
There may or may not be a moratorium on Supreme Court nominations between now and Jan. 20, 2017, but there bloody well better be a moratorium on *approvals* of Supreme Court nominees for that same time period.
Knowing that this is not politically correct and may bear consequences; I have to note that as this disastrous for the country Supreme Court term ends, that the silence from the leadership of the Republican party is deafening. We are hearing from a couple of governors, and state attorneys general; but nothing but silence from the leadership of the supposed opposition party. It is not an unreasonable conjecture that silence equals consent, if not approval.
I wouldn’t say silence, so much as mumbles and grumbles that tell me that most of Congressional Leadership ( and not an insignificant number of Presidential candidates) are uninterested in bringing the court back to its more limited and traditional role.
Of course they aren’t .. although Roberts appears to want to force congress and the executive back into theirs …
.
Think on that one a little, eh?
.
Mew