by Dino Grandoni
Washington Post

It’s a bedrock court case on climate change. Now it has a bull’s eye on its back.

The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg may eventually result in a reassessment — or at least, a narrower reading — of the Supreme Court’s first and most important ruling on rising global temperatures.

The landmark 2007 decision, called Massachusetts vs. Environmental Protection Agency, gave the federal government the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions…

“I can’t see a Trump appointee upholding Massachusetts v. EPA,” said Steve Milloy, a former member of Trump’s transition team who serves as a board member of the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank dismissive of the scientific consensus on climate change.

Noting the increasingly right-leaning tilt of the high court, Milloy added: “If you force them to vote on it, we win.”

Read more.