What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS, Now with KBJ

Status
Not open for further replies.
What does that mean, to split the judgment and scope like that? Anything significant?

9-0 said the EPA overreached in this particular case. 5 said "The EPA overreaches whenever they try to regulate X," while 4 said, "The statute says the EPA can regulate X, this just isn't X."
 

I learned this very recently (the podcast Strict Scrutiny).


4ac.gif
 
9-0 said the EPA overreached in this particular case. 5 said "The EPA overreaches whenever they try to regulate X," while 4 said, "The statute says the EPA can regulate X, this just isn't X."

5 said the EPA always overreaches? Good Lord by what precedence is that opinion supported by?
 
5 said the EPA always overreaches? Good Lord by what precedence is that opinion supported by?

5 said they always overreach when they try to regulate something which I'm not versed enough to know what it is here. I know it has to do with what qualifies as a "water of the US," and 5 said the EPA categorically overreached here and all across the country. But I don't know exactly how. Something to do with adjacent vs adjoining waters, based on Kavanaugh's concurrence.
 
I'm honestly shocked. Sure, at some point, if Roberts wants to reassert his chiefiness, he was going to have to buck Alito. But Kavanaugh is a total surprise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top