Paragraph of the Day

From Massachusetts v. EPA, CJ. Roberts in dissent (objecting to the majority's finding of standing):

Apparently dissatisfied with the pace of progress on this issue in the elected branches, petitioners have come to the courts claim broad-ranging injury, and attempting to tie that injury to the Government's alleged failure to comply with a rather narrow statutory provision. I would reject these challenged as nonjusticiable. Such a conclusion involves no judgment on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem. Nor does it render petitioners without recourse. This Court's standing jurisprudence simply recognizes that redress of grievances of the sort at issue here 'is the function of Congress and the Chief Executive,' no the federal courts.

And, not to be outdone, Justice Scalia, at issue with majority's assertion that CO2 constitutes a "pollutant" under the CAA, drops in this little doozie in Footnote 2:

It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence qualifies as an "air pollutant." This reading of the statute defies common sense.