pudge's Journal: Supreme Court Admits to Violating the Constitution

Regarding today's court ruling:

In response, EPA, supported by 10 intervening States and six trade associations, correctly argued that we may not address those two questions unless at least one petitioner has standing to invoke our jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution. Notwithstanding the serious character of that jurisdictional argument and the absence of any conflicting decisions construing 202(a)(1), the unusual importance of the underlying issue persuaded us to grant the writ.

Translation: "yes, no one has Constitutional standing to bring this case before the Supreme Court; but because we think global warming is so important, we're going to ignore the Constitution."

As Justice Roberts notes:

It is not at all clear how the Court's "special solicitude" for Massachusetts plays out in the standing analysis, except as an implicit concession that petitioners cannot establish standing on traditional terms.

Translation: "they can't show a Constitutional way for the case to proceed, so they made something up."

OK, it's a little bit (but not much) more complicated than that, but (surprise!) I agree with the Chief Justice. And it's things like this that make me totally scoff at those who claim both the left and the right are "activist."

ugh

[Bill Dog]

Far better and more proper that the Congress should have to re-amend the Clean Air Act, explicitly specifying the EPA having jurisdiction over regulating greenhouse gases, than an activist SCOTUS instructing them to, based on a dubious stretching of the term "[public] welfare" in the Act. If it's allowed to become twisted like the interstate Commerce Clause, soon the EPA will be regulating our farts.

Re:

[pudge]

Far better and more proper that the Congress should have to re-amend the Clean Air Act, explicitly specifying the EPA having jurisdiction over regulating greenhouse gases, than an activist SCOTUS instructing them to, based on a dubious stretching of the term "[public] welfare" in the Act.

Finally, we can get back to agreeing. :-)

Re:

[Bill Dog]

Pardon me if I in effect just repeated what you journaled, but I thought you were disagreeing. You said you agreed with Roberts, and scoff at claims of judicial activism. I thought you were supporting what was going on.

Re:

[pudge]

Pardon me if I in effect just repeated what you journaled, but I thought you were disagreeing. You said you agreed with Roberts, and scoff at claims of judicial activism. I thought you were supporting what was going on.

Roberts dissented. I agreed with his dissent. I scoff at claims that they are NOT being judicial activists, or that the left and right are equally activist: the left of the court does things like this a lot, and is far more activist.

I can see how what I wrote was a bit confusing.