“BREAKING: Supreme Court limits EPA rules on greenhouse gas emissions”
…and as a result, will soon find out just how impotent it is, when it comes to trying to rein in the Skynet that is leftist bureaucratic rule. Washington Examiner:
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled to place limits on the Obama administration’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from factories and power plants. But the Environmental Protection Agency likely has other tools that can be used to get around the 5-4 decision.
Yes. For instance, like lawlessness, a President who condones and even engages in lawlessness, and an AG whose objective it appears is to shield the lawless by using law the way it sees fit.
The states are going to have to assert 10th Amendment rights and simply dare armed bureaucratic agents to come in and close down industry.
Oh, and lest we forget, I’d like to point out yet again that the most troubling part of this ruling is not the outcome, but rather that everyone knew going in at least 4 Justices would act as rubber stamps for Obama’s clearly unconstitutional agenda. That they weren’t able to gather that lone swing vote on this issue means they’ll pull back some of their praise for Kennedy, or Roberts, etc. — with the hope that next time they “don what’s right for their legacies.”
Our courts are as fucked as the rest of our government. The whole thing is dysfunctional. And one of the reasons is that there is no consistent set of rules for determining what counts as interpreting the law, then applying it. From my perspective — and it is the only coherent one — originalism must be adopted as the singular hermeneutic strategy, because it is the only strategy that, when used within the conventions of legal interpretation (which requires commonly understood contemporaneous diction, clarity, etc.), from a structural perspective, remains true to the process of legislation and to the separation of powers: that is, if we don’t appeal, when “interpreting,” to what the lawmakers meant, we aren’t really allowing the legislature to write the laws. Rather, we are allowing a judicial majority to re-write them as they please.
This doesn’t mean that every intention of a legislature will be signaled well; bad laws can be written and voted on. But legislative history should be able to show justices that though the intent wasn’t signaled properly, it nevertheless was the intent, and they can then throw the statutes back to the legislature and have it clean up language that, as a matter of the demands of legal conventions, is causing confusion.
Such a structural imperative is a way to fix the court system and make rogue interpretive maneuvers more difficult to justify. Couple this to term limits — to avoid the Beltway drift leftward of so many insulated public servants — and there is hope for the legal system.
But make no mistake: what comes to count as legitimate interpretation is of paramount importance to the functioning of a tripartite government with enumerated powers and checks and balances to confound the impulse to over legislate. In the legal speech act, if we are not privileging the intent of the lawmakers / ratifiers, we aren’t performing the task of creating and instituting legislation in a way that is consonant with our way of government.
And from that failing, chaos and tyranny ensue.