The difference between how Dana Milbank interpreted the oral arguments before the Supreme Court on greenhouse emissions and the way pretty much everyone else interpreted them is enough to give you whiplash. Maybe Dana’s right and Justice Kennedy is going to eviscerate the EPA, but the people who actually have experience watching the court thought Kennedy was siding with the EPA. They also didn’t think any likely ruling would have much impact either way.
I know who I trust to be correct about this, and it isn’t Mr. Milbank, who seemed to be guided by one question Justice Kennedy launched at the Solicitor General. That’s his style of analysis: look for the gotcha moment and present it as if it explains everything.
