Posted on 07/07/2022 6:02:18 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
On the last day of the Supreme Court’s term, in a case called West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Court declared that the Clean Air Act does not clearly authorize the EPA to create a Clean Power Plan — in other words, to set standards for emissions from existing power plants with a view to encouraging “generation shifting” of electricity production toward sources that emit less carbon dioxide. If this does not sound like the stuff of great events, it was made so by the court’s approach to the case. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, announced expressly, for the first time, that the court would apply a “major questions doctrine.” According to the majority, the doctrine holds that in “extraordinary cases” the court will apply a “different approach” than the ordinary legal principles governing the interpretation of statutes......
It is grimly hilarious, then, that the court’s opinion in West Virginia v. EPA follows none of these methods. It is not an “originalist” opinion. Originalism purports to ground the interpretation of legal texts in the original public meaning as understood by the founding generation, for constitutional provisions, or in the original public meaning of enacted statutes. As Justice Neil M. Gorsuch recently wrote in Bostock v. Clayton County, which recognized sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories under federal civil rights law, “this Court normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment.” In West Virginia v. EPA, however, neither the majority nor Gorsuch’s concurrence shows any interest in the original context or public understanding of the Clean Air Act provisions enacted in 1970
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
(fixed)
It’s Robert’s job. If he can’t get the Liberal decision to fly, he can write and undermine the Conservative one.
The EPA has been acting outside the Constitution for decades.
It is called the non-delegation doctrine, it has been around for decades, and this is a part of it, referred to often in the decision.
Exactamente.
Cornelius Adrian Comstock Vermeule is an American legal scholar who is currently the Ralph S. Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School. He is best known for his contributions to constitutional law and administrative law, in particular his theory of common-good constitutionalism.
Cornelius Comstock is heir to the ruling aristocracy. Got himself some theories and chit.
Hey Adrian! Oh Adrian! Suck it up! You ain’t a SCOTUS jockey and you ain’t gonna be. Because Americans have awakened and are fed up with your protected species.
“one might call it “common-good constitutionalism”—should be based on the principles that government helps direct persons, associations, and society generally toward the common good”
-I’m from the government and I’m here to help-??
Another take from the “Living, Breathing Constitution” crowd.
That rule and idea?
No thanks Corny, no thanks.
US Constitution is a dead text document.
It is what it is, and nothing more.
Wanna change it? It’s so groovy, it even has rules for that.
Whoever this is, they are an idiotic moron. (I know, a little redundant.)
The EPA, without any legislative basis declared that an airborne gas, essential to all animal and vegetable life, to be a pollutant.
That was the mistake in this case. Someone told them to “go for it” and they did. They ignored even the temptation of science and went for it.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.