The hubris of Alito et al to judge our best available science, despite having zero expertise, despite decades of policy, despite decades of scientific and methodology advances, is just bonkers.
Oh, sorry, they're just being textualists. A totally real, consistent, and in no way purely fabricated as needed case-by-case legal doctrine.
I can't wait to humor the SCOTUS' anti-textualism tortured rationalism next time they choose originalism, major doctrines, or an entirely new legal fiction to reach their predetermined outcome.
I volunteered for a wetlands conservation group for a decade. Only made possible by Bush 41's efforts to further codify and protect wetlands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_net_loss_wetlands_policy
The hubris of Alito et al to judge our best available science, despite having zero expertise, despite decades of policy, despite decades of scientific and methodology advances, is just bonkers.
Oh, sorry, they're just being textualists. A totally real, consistent, and in no way purely fabricated as needed case-by-case legal doctrine.
I can't wait to humor the SCOTUS' anti-textualism tortured rationalism next time they choose originalism, major doctrines, or an entirely new legal fiction to reach their predetermined outcome.
Probably next week.