More on Sotomayor
Dean Revesz of NYU Law and Michael Livermore opine that the environmental community is reading too much into Judge Sotomayor's decision in Riverkeeper v. EPA, in which she ruled that the Clean Water Act forbids cost-benefit analysis in certain circumstances, and in which she was later reversed by the Supreme Court. The Dean and Mr. Livermore note:
Perhaps most importantly, the people who are trying to discern Sotomayor's opinions about cost-benefit analysis from Riverkeeper are looking in the wrong place. The role of a judge is to apply the law as it stands.
This is a distinctly different, but welcome, left-perspective in comparison to yesterday's comments, noted on this blog, from Earth Justice.
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›