[enragedcacti]

And that this court will continue to flagrantly misinterpret laws to reach their desired policy goals. For an example see Sackett v. EPA where the majority very carefully fails to understand the difference between adjacent and adjoining in order to cull environmental regulations they don't like. From Kavanaugh:

"In my view, the Court’s “continuous surface connection” test departs from the statutory text, from 45 years of consistent agency practice, and from this Court’s precedents. The Court’s test narrows the Clean Water Act’s coverage of “adjacent” wetlands to mean only “adjoining” wetlands. But “adjacent” and “adjoining” have distinct meanings: Adjoining wetlands are contiguous to or bordering a covered water, whereas adjacent wetlands include both (i) those wetlands contiguous to or bordering a covered water, and (ii) wetlands separated from a covered water only by a man-made dike or barrier, natural river berm, beach dune, or the like."

[salawat]

>And that this court will continue to flagrantly misinterpret laws to reach their desired policy goals.

You mean like every Court has done since Wickard v. Filburn?

I dare say it most certainly does get old.

[enragedcacti]

> You mean like every Court has done since Wickard v. Filburn?

Yes, its definitely not a new issue. Which is why I'm not a fan of the judiciary grabbing so much power for itself, the least representative and least accountable branch of government.