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
Don’t know how to identify every one of the 1,500 endangered species? This group wants to throw you in prison.
Ok, that’s a slight overstatement. But not as much of one as you would think. Activist group WildEarth Guardians apparently dreams of a world in which people can be thrown … ›
PLF scored another victory against bureaucratic overreach yesterday, when the federal court in Alaska dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Congressional Review Act. This dismissal is PLF’s latest success … ›