A Lot of Hot Air
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Massachusetts v EPA, popularly known as the global warming case. I managed to read half of the oral argument transcript yesterday in spite of being in court all morning, having class in the evening, and doing preparations for class tonight. How did I do that? I drastically reduced the amount of sleep I get a night. Try it. It works.
Anyway, the case focused mostly on the standing issue (from what I've read thus far). Hopefully I have time in the near future to elaborate on this, because I think the states have some serious Lujan problems to contend with before we even get to the merits. It's all about the remedy, as a Jason Mraz might say. If standing really is this issue that much of this case will turn on, Justice Kennedy seems to be in the drivers seat yet again. When I do start sleeping again, I'll sleep much more soundly when Justice Kennedy isn't controlling Constitutional law.
As penance for my lack of commentary and analysis, here are some links. Howard Bashman has a nice round up of the media coverage of the case. Jonathan Adler has a collection of commentary.
With that, I am out. I have an oral argument to review a few times before I give it tonight. I'll be arguing that a pregnant meth user should not be chargeable under an Oklahoma child homicide statute. Three cheers for my moral flexibility. I just keep telling myself "this is statutory interpretation, this is statutory interpretation...." and trying to not get hung up on the facts. Wish me luck.
Anyway, the case focused mostly on the standing issue (from what I've read thus far). Hopefully I have time in the near future to elaborate on this, because I think the states have some serious Lujan problems to contend with before we even get to the merits. It's all about the remedy, as a Jason Mraz might say. If standing really is this issue that much of this case will turn on, Justice Kennedy seems to be in the drivers seat yet again. When I do start sleeping again, I'll sleep much more soundly when Justice Kennedy isn't controlling Constitutional law.
As penance for my lack of commentary and analysis, here are some links. Howard Bashman has a nice round up of the media coverage of the case. Jonathan Adler has a collection of commentary.
With that, I am out. I have an oral argument to review a few times before I give it tonight. I'll be arguing that a pregnant meth user should not be chargeable under an Oklahoma child homicide statute. Three cheers for my moral flexibility. I just keep telling myself "this is statutory interpretation, this is statutory interpretation...." and trying to not get hung up on the facts. Wish me luck.
