Supreme Court Admits to Violating the Constitution

| | Comments (0)
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."

Leave a comment

<pudge/*> (pronounced "PudgeGlob") is thousands of posts over many years by Pudge.

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by pudge published on April 2, 2007 2:09 PM.

PudgeFeed was the previous entry in this site.

More Democrat Stupidity on Gonzales is the next entry in this site.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.