Putting the "sup" in "supreme"

The supreme court stood up for the environment today by telling the Environmental Protection Agency to do its job (namely, being an Agency whose function is Protection of the Environment). Notice there is no mention so far of this news on the EPA website.
I guess I haven't been following very closely, since I didn't even know that the EPA was refusing to even regulate tailpipe emissions. The pertinent passage:

Three questions
The court had three questions before it.

* Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?
* Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?
* Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?

The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a “laundry list” of reasons that include foreign policy considerations.

The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.

“EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change,” Stevens said.

Shockingly, this was an ethics-line vote, as the liberals voted with the majority, and the conservatives voted to dissent. Kennedy made the difference. I love how apparently the EPA was trying to not regulate tailpipe emissions for reasons completely unrelated to the Environment, whose Protection I may remind you this particular Agency is designed for.
Here's my solution: regulatory agencies should be part of the judicial branch rather than the executive branch so that its policies are determined by the law, rather than by the current administration's party. Of course, I'm sure that if the democrats were in power over regulation right now, and presuming that they were doing their job (big presumption!), I'd probably be arguing against that exact change. Oh well.