The fallout over Massachusetts v. EPA continues and as time progresses commentators are focusing more on the nuances of the case. Some of this we've covered in class, some (most) we haven't.
Here's a Sunday piece by Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times' Supreme Court corespondent. She focuses on Roberts' dissenting opinion and the limited concept of standing he outlines in it. As we discussed in class, that may be the central dispute between the majority and dissenting opinions. The majority sees the court as an appropriate venue for these issues to be heard, the minority does not.
This is a classic dispute between those who see the court's as an active participant in policy and those who do not. This has nothing to do with the seriouseness of the issue, just the forum where it can legitimately be addressed. When we discuss the shift of the courts to the right over the past three or four decades, this is the sort of issue we are talking about.
