What does that literally mean? In my humble opinion, it means that she has an opposing viewpoint. In one ruling, she said that the cost of saving fishing was irrelevant to the technology due to the wording of a statute. Whereas, the Supreme Court Justices disagreed that the same clean up with the same results could be done by the companies for billions of dollars cheaper. That's right, B as in Billions of Dollars.
It gives me the shivers that someone who would be still handing down opinions for my grandchildren (if I had any) has this basic and cavalier disregard for economic impact of her rulings.
Judge Scalia wrote that following Judge "Sotomayor's reasoning would cost nine times what was necessary to accomplish" the same thing or nearly the same using more inexpensive technology.
Why was she stuck on technology? Because the wording of the statute was "best technology" which would not allow the EPA to consider company costs.
The EPA's current practice is a reasonable and hence legitimate exercise of
its discretion to weigh benefits against costs ... We conclude that the EPA
permissibly relied on cost-benefit analysis," the majority said in its April
decision.
The ruling sat much better with business advocates than did
Sotomayor's.
"If the best available technology is only so good to save
X number of fish and you have to spend X billion dollars more to come up with
better technology and implement it, those costs are going to be passed on to
consumers and their energy bills," said Glenn Lammi, counsel to the Washington
Legal Foundation.
Is it just me? Am I reading danger here that really isn't dangerous? What else can the Obama regime do to us that isn't already being done?
Come quickly, Lord Jesus, come quickly!
No comments:
Post a Comment