The passing of senior associate justice Antonin Scalia makes this a fitting occasion to marvel at his wit and wisdom.  Note that his technique was to teach his fellow jurists, even taking them on hunting trips.  With the recent unprecedented stay issued by the Supreme Court preventing the EPA from implementing its Clean Power Plan, Scalia's insights in his dissent to the majority decision in Massachusetts v. EPA is particularly useful as a teaching moment. Even before reaching its discussion of the word "judgment," the Court makes another significant error when it concludes that "§202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles in the event that it forms a 'judgment' that such emissions contribute to climate change." Ante, at 25 (emphasis added). For such authorization, the Court relies on what it calls "the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air...(Read Full Post)