Judge kills MI black voter suppression law that required photo ID, says many more will vote than there will be of the Repug-LIE of fraudulent voting.
and EPA can regulate for health of people and environment (aka PROTECTION) without considering the CORPORATE costs.
============
And this nasty, senile, political asshole dissents POLITICALLY (pro-business) against his own LEGAL opinion. :lol
Justice Scalia Makes Epic Blunder In Supreme Court Opinion
It's not often that a Supreme Court justice makes a factual blunder in a formal opinion.
Legal experts say Justice Antonin Scalia erred in his dissent in the 6-2 decision Tuesday to uphold the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate coal pollution that moves across state lines. The Reagan-appointed jurist argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with a unanimous 2001 ruling which he mistakenly said shot down EPA efforts to consider costs when setting regulations.
"This is not the first time EPA has sought to convert the Clean Air Act into a mandate for cost-effective regulation. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457 (2001), confronted EPA's contention that it could consider costs in setting [National Ambient Air Quality Standards]," Scalia wrote in his dissent, which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. :lol
The problem: the EPA's position in the 2001 case was exactly the opposite. The agency was defending its refusal to consider cost as a counter-weight to health benefits when setting certain air quality standards. It was the trucking industry that wanted the EPA to factor in cost. The 9-0 ruling sided with the EPA. The author of the ruling that Scalia mischaracterized? Scalia himself.
The conservative justice's error was noted by University of California-Berkley law professor Dan Farber, who called it "embarrassing" and a "cringeworthy blunder."
"Scalia’s dissent also contains a hugely embarrassing mistake. He refers to the Court’s earlier decision in American Trucking as involving an effort by EPA to smuggle cost considerations into the statute. But that’s exactly backwards: it was industry that argued for cost considerations and EPA that resisted," Farber wrote on the environmental law and policy blog Legal Planet.
"This gaffe is doubly embarrassing because Scalia wrote the opinion in the case, so he should surely remember which side won! Either some law clerk made the mistake and Scalia failed to read his own dissent carefully enough, or he simply forgot the basics of the earlier case and his clerks failed to correct him. Either way, it's a cringeworthy blunder."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/anto...+%28TPMNews%29
:lol
Repug/corporate/VRWC political hacks on SCOTUS. The quality! The respect for law! :lol
Now, EPA must rule that coal ash is a toxic substance and make the owners clean every bit of it up.
And overturn dickhead war criminal Cheney and include fracking in the Clean Water Act.
