The Sun's article on mercury limits incorrectly asserts that the U.S. Supreme Court split on ideological grounds ("Justices rule against EPA power plant mercury limits," June 29). On the contrary, the Supreme Court split was one between original intent, honest interpretations of the Constitution with their emphases on rule of law — Justice Antonin Scalia's wing — and ideological, political, legislative interpretations by the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wing.
The Sun is entitled to its political prejudices but seems incapable of eschewing them in "news" stories. The Sun has an obligation as a great and influential newspaper to put news on the front pages and editorial turns of phrases on the opinion pages. The case at hand is very straightforward. EPA violated its own key regulation on cost analysis in issuing an anti-pollution directive. It egregiously violated the rule of law.
The Scalia wing reacted to possible official misconduct, not to ideology. Certainly, this misconduct was obvious even to the Ginsburg wing. The Ginsburg wing dissension, therefore, clearly illustrates what is meant by "judicial activism." It forget facts, logic and legal theory. To these justices, there is only the fight. Of course, the political left habitually distorts the meaning of "judicial activism" by applying it to any Supreme Court decision that does not promote its agenda.
Angelo Mirabella, Silver Spring