Justice Scalia Makes Epic Blunder In Supreme Court Opinion.
“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.
The problem: the EPA’s position in the 2001 case was exactly the opposite.
More or less epic than basing an entire judicial career on the fallacy that he can accurately interpret the intent of the drafters 100% of the time and that, coincidentally, it favors the desired conservative legal outcome 100% of the time?
************
* No dogs were harmed in the drafting of this post, though a number of them may have been insulted by the unfortunate comparison to Justice Scalia.
Thought Snax 
Wasn’t that fun? Apparently, Scalia was allowed to correct his dissent after the howler came to public notice. I know that members of Congress can “correct the Record” (that is, not sound like as much of a jerk in print as they did on the floor), but I didn’t know SC Justices could change what they’ve written once the opinion has been released.
LikeLike