No, no, I’m not attacking your credentials, my lament is that, whether implied or not, the liberal justices repeatedly base their decisions on liberal dogma rather than constitutional muster.
You said:
“Apparently you didn’t read the article because, in part, the decision was based on it.”
I said:
“I did read the article. I saw where environmental groups made the claim, but I don’t see that in the article as part of the decision. Would you point out the text you claim I missed?”
Would you please point out what you think I missed?