When laws attack

Eek! Laws!

The latest right-wing talking point is that a judge is less qualified if their rulings are overturned by the Supreme Court.

By the current Supreme Court? The 5-to-4 Federalist Society court???

With the state of the Supreme Court lately, a judge is probably more qualified if they have more rulings overturned by it.

The new rightist talking point is being repeated ad infinitum in regard to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor wasn't even on the list of progressive favorites, but the wingnutosphere still considers her too liberal.

One of the cases they use as "evidence" of this is a 2007 case about power companies' responsibilities to keep aquatic life from being killed by cooling vents of power plants. The law is clear: The EPA can consider whether a power company is able to afford the technology to protect aquatic life - not whether this purchase will keep the company from Making more Money.

That's what Sotomayor ruled as an appeals judge. And that ruling was right.

Of course, the Supreme Court gutted that ruling this year - on April 1, suitably enough, considering the fools who compose much of the current Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court made an activist ruling, and it was wrong. The law says power plants must use the "best technology available" - not the best technology that increases their profit margins. But the Supremes apparently think power companies have the "right" to not have to follow any sensible regulations that might reduce their precious, precious profits.

An aside: A right-wing critic of Sotomayor accused her of "blind political allegiance to the Greens." See, the Obama administration really is bipartisan.

When a law says what it says, and the Supreme Court doesn't follow the law, why should that cancel out the qualifications of a judge who the Supreme Court overruled?