Good morning, folks. Two things on the agenda this fine morning.First, I have an interesting article from a fellow blogger (and my former law school classmate) Jon Dodson at Down With Tyranny. Jon, writing about the pending D.C. handgun case in the Supreme Court, has an interesting analysis of how judicial philosophy might collide with political philosophy for some of the conservative justices.
The issue for some of the conservative justices is their adherence to so-called "conservative" interpretive principles. These principles, which I personally find rational, suggest that when a judge considers the issues in case, she ought to try to give effect to the intent of the framers of the law (usually a legislature) by first focusing on the actual language of the law. That extends to constitutional construction. The problem in the D.C. handguns case, D.C. v. Heller, is that a fair reading of the Second Amendment's language doesn't really support an individual right to bear arms so much as a collective right. Political conservatives are sold on the individual right, so, in order to secure an individual right, those that have also bought into conservative judicial philosophies might have to betray their "strict constructionist" values in order to secure it.
Jon gives what I think is an excellent parallel: Roe v. Wade. The D.C. handguns case has the potential to be one of those decisions where the Court goes out of its way to protect a right that might not be protected by the Constitution (something you might not want to tell your new co-workers, Dews). So, depending upon how the Roberts Court approaches this case, we liberals may have our own "Roe v. Wade" type case to rail against for decades to come. This just makes the next few months all the more exciting.
On another note, California has sued the EPA over the EPA's decision to block implementation of tougher vehicle emissions standards, and Vermont has joined the suit. 
A few months ago, Vermont was the first state to win the right to impose tougher vehicle emissions standards, winning a case in Vermont federal District Court (actually, the environmental law clinic at my law school participated and argued in the case). Several states, including California, won similar cases after the Vermont decision. You know what happens next: the Bush EPA does whatever it can to prevent the states from enforcing their new authority. It did this by not granting a necessary waiver. But it did so without giving solid reasons, so there's hope that Vermont and California will be able to enforce their new authority in the near future.
A few months ago, Vermont was the first state to win the right to impose tougher vehicle emissions standards, winning a case in Vermont federal District Court (actually, the environmental law clinic at my law school participated and argued in the case). Several states, including California, won similar cases after the Vermont decision. You know what happens next: the Bush EPA does whatever it can to prevent the states from enforcing their new authority. It did this by not granting a necessary waiver. But it did so without giving solid reasons, so there's hope that Vermont and California will be able to enforce their new authority in the near future.More than anything, this goes to show the (unlawful) lengths that this administration will go to in order to protect favored industries and constituencies. This exposes perhaps the scariest face of this administration: the one that is willing to eschew the rule of law to get what it wants. All the more reason why this election season is one of the most important in a long time.
Happy Thursday folks!
