Author Topic:  (Read 177 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 264,043
« on: February 25, 2014, 09:09:21 AM »

Support the USO

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 49,962
  • TBR Illuminati
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2014, 01:44:43 PM »
that the author chose to characterize legitimate complaints about executive overreach as "howls from the right" demonstrates her political proclivities.  Did she ever characterize the left's demands against the Bush presidency's executive orders as "howls from the left"?  I think not.

on the substance, if this does in fact play out the way she suggests, then it would most likely be good that the Court chose to not revisit Massachusetts v. EPA because doing so would simply muddy the waters of what the Court's decision in this case stood for.  By not revisiting that case, a loss for the EPA would stand one basically one clear, undeniable, basis:  regulatory overreach and the executive's inability to rewrite enacted law through the regulatory process.  Such an opinion would also be much more likely to garner support from the more liberal members of the Court, giving such an opinion even more weight as precedent.  That would be a far more potent weapon against Obuttocks' imperial presidency than would an opinion revisiting Massachusetts v. EPA, which might be easily dismissed as nothing more than just another "political" adventure of an activist Court, and which would probably end up being a 5-4 decision, which tends to be a weaker form of precedent.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf