SCOTUS Slaps EPA

[CuteOldGuy]

Wetlands are not always wetlands. EPA overreach overturned.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46808695

[JD Barleycorn]

Reminds me of a case in Virginia Beach about 25 years ago. A home owner was informed that an "expert" had determined that his back yard was a wet land because it had so much rain in a two year period. This was not a new house and this was not a new home owner. He also did not recall any "expert" coming on his property to set up a rain gauge. This also took years to overcome. Why doesn't the SCOTUS offer a remedy of removing the people responsible from their jobs with a complete loss of benefits?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Wetlands are not always wetlands. EPA overreach overturned.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46808695

dont tell me, let me guess


youre already fuckin off on your new job

[oglfp12]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Wetlands are not always wetlands. EPA overreach overturned.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46808695

COG, you read something in the article that I can't find. The Supreme Court made no ruling at all on whether or not the land in question was "wet land." The whole point of the suit, and the court's ruling, was that citizens be able to expeditiously challenge EPA orders in court. Don't get me wrong, I think this ruling is a good one. I am not a big fan of the EPA, and citizens should be able to challenge its rulings. But we don't have any information about whether or not EPA overreached in its ruling on the land in question. That will only come from the Sackett's court challenge.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by CJ7

dont tell me, let me guess


youre already fuckin off on your new job

LOL! Caught me!

Yes, today is a day off. But I'll be out of town all next week, and I will only have my Kindle. I'm sure you'll miss me.

og_12, I understand that, but it does limit what the EPA can do, they are not dictatorial like they would want to be. In that sense, it is a slap to them, and a victory, albeit small, for freedom.

[JD Barleycorn]

This court ruling only allows the couple to take the EPA to court. It prevents the EPA from fining them, what was it...$75,000 a day until a court date. It was also a unanimous ruling.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

This court ruling only allows the couple to take the EPA to court. It prevents the EPA from fining them, what was it...$75,000 a day until a court date. It was also a unanimous ruling.

Jesus H Christ! How much of an article do you read before you comment on it and misrepresent the entire article?

It says (more than) $30,000 in the first fucking paragraph. Other reports have put it at $30,000 and change (IE, less than $31,000).

It also said,
"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in a separate opinion that the only issue decided by the court Wednesday is the Sacketts' ability to contest the EPA finding that their property is subject to the Clean Water Act. The court did not decide larger issues, Ginsburg said.
"On that understanding, I join the court's opinion," she said."

And.

In another separate opinion, Justice Samuel Alito called on Congress to clear up confusion over the reach of the Clean Water Act. Alito said that federal regulators could assert authority over any property that is wet for even part of the year, not just rivers and streams.
The court's opinion "is better than nothing, but only clarification of the reach of the Clean Water Act can rectify the underlying problem," Alito said.

And you have a job teaching our young people.

Fuck!

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Reminds me of a case in Virginia Beach about 25 years ago. A home owner was informed that an "expert" had determined that his back yard was a wet land because it had so much rain in a two year period. This was not a new house and this was not a new home owner. He also did not recall any "expert" coming on his property to set up a rain gauge. This also took years to overcome. Why doesn't the SCOTUS offer a remedy of removing the people responsible from their jobs with a complete loss of benefits?

What case would that be?

Forgive me if I doubt your ability to analyze the content of a court case or news story.

[Jackie S]

The SCOTUS does not make laws.
What they have done is inject a certain amount of common sense into the senario.