pageok
pageok
pageok
Quick Take on Mass v. EPA:

This morning I have the "opposing view" column in USA Today arguing that the Court should reject the petitioners' arguments in Massachusetts v. EPA. The editors take the contrary position here. [As an aside, it was quite a challenge to say something meaningful about the case in 350 words. Simplifying the issues is one way to reduce the word count, at the risk of losing precision.]

I will have more to say on the case after today's oral argument, as will others. Today at 12:15, the Georgetown Law Supreme Court Institute and the Georgetown Environmental Law & Policy Institute are sponsoring a high-powered panel to review and analyze the arguments. Participants include Georgetown's own Richard Lazarus and Lisa Heinzerling (the latter of whom wrote the petititoners' primary brief), former EPA general counsel E. Donald Elliott, and Hunton & Williams' Norman Fichthorn, who represented the Utility Air Regulatory Group in the case. The event will be webcast at the link above, and is also scheduled to be broadcast live on C-Span.

Guest44 (mail) (www):
Excellent article, Prof. Adler.
11.29.2006 7:59am
JosephSlater (mail):
I'm interested in this part of the post: "[As an aside, it was quite a challenge to say something meaningful about the case in 350 words. Simplifying the issues is one way to reduce the word count, at the risk of losing precision.]"

This and other legal blogs often criticize various editorials and other short-form discussions of legal issues for being incomplete and overly-simplistic. Did this experience cause you to have more sympathy with editorial writers (or at least appreciation for the difficulty of their task)?
11.29.2006 10:23am