Staying Alive

I’ve made a related point before, but I think it’s misguided for the Court to issue a stay on an issue as important as the regulations to implement the climate change agreement without an explanation.

While the Justices cannot be expected to write on every motion that comes before them, on matters on great importance they should not hide behind the fig leaf that a stay is not a decision on the merits and thus requires no opinion. The four dissenters on the climate change stay are equally in the wrong–they should also have explained their reasons or contested what the majority did.

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Douglas Levene says:

    I don’t disagree, even short opinions from the majority and dissent would be helpful.

  2. Brett Bellmore says:

    Heck, I’d like to see at least a few words on every refusal of certiori. (They might have to take some of these cases, if they couldn’t invent plausible excuses for refusing them.) But the Court apparently treasures its lack of transparency.

    In this case, they wouldn’t need to say much. “The proposed regulations, even taking the EPA’s position as undisputed, will have beneficial effects too small to measure, while the harm to the plaintiffs is large, immediate, and irreversible.”

  3. Shag from Brookline says:

    Finley Peter Dunne’s Mr. Dooley used to say that the Court follows the “illiction” returns. An update in this case might be the Court previews the upcoming ‘illictions.”

    Apparently Brett washes down the coalers’ talking points with bottled Flint, MI water (perhaps as nostalgia for his northern Michigan days where he was weaned on racial politics that led him to the Palmetto State).

  4. Joe says:

    Agreed especially because commentary suggests this is a quite notable exercise of its stay power. I doubt it was warranted but they should at least say a few words about why. Note liberals repeatedly don’t say why they dissent from a denial of a stay and think such and such a person should stay alive. As noted, I think both sides are open to criticism here but those who granted the stay did more so are more wrong