Supreme Court Limits EPA's Authority Under the Clean Water Act (npr.org) 246
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: The U.S. Supreme Court Court on Thursday significantly curtailed the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the nation's wetlands and waterways. It was the court's second decision in a year limiting the ability of the agency to enact anti-pollution regulations and combat climate change. The challenge to the regulations was brought by Michael and Chantell Sackett, who bought property to build their dream house about 500 feet away from Idaho's Scenic Priest Lake, a 19-mile stretch of clear water that is fed by mountain streams and bordered by state and national parkland. Three days after the Sacketts started excavating their property, the EPA stopped work on the project because the couple had failed to get a permit for disturbing the wetlands on their land. Now a conservative Supreme Court majority has used the Sackett's case to roll back longstanding rules adopted to carry out the 51-year-old Clean Water Act. While the nine justices agreed that the Sacketts should prevail, they divided 5-to-4 as to how far to go in limiting the EPA's authority.
Writing for the court majority (PDF), Justice Samuel Alito said that the navigable waters of the United States regulated by the EPA under the statute do not include many previously regulated wetlands. Rather, he said, the CWA extends to only streams, oceans, rivers and lakes, and those wetlands with a "continuous surface connection to those bodies." Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by the court's three liberal members, disputed Alito's reading of the statute, noting that since 1977 when the CWA was amended to include adjacent wetlands, eight consecutive presidential administrations, Republican and Democratic, have interpreted the law to cover wetlands that the court has now excluded. Kavanaugh said that by narrowing the act to cover only adjoining wetlands, the court's new test will have quote "significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States." In addition to joining Kavanaugh's opinion, the court's liberals, signed on to a separate opinion by Justice Elena Kagan. Pointing to the air and water pollution cases, she accused the majority of appointing itself instead of Congress as the national policymaker on the environment. President Biden, in a statement, called the decision "disappointing." It "upends the legal framework that has protected America's waters for decades," he said. "It also defies the science that confirms the critical role of wetlands in safeguarding our nation's streams, rivers, and lakes from chemicals and pollutants that harm the health and wellbeing of children, families, and communities."
"I don't think its an overstatement to say its catastrophic for the Clean Water act," said Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation. Wetlands play an "enormous role in protecting the nation's water," he said. "They're really the kidneys of water systems and they're also the sponges. They absorb a lot of water on the landscape. So they're very important water features and they're very important to the quality of the water that we drink, swim, fish, boat and recreate in."
Writing for the court majority (PDF), Justice Samuel Alito said that the navigable waters of the United States regulated by the EPA under the statute do not include many previously regulated wetlands. Rather, he said, the CWA extends to only streams, oceans, rivers and lakes, and those wetlands with a "continuous surface connection to those bodies." Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by the court's three liberal members, disputed Alito's reading of the statute, noting that since 1977 when the CWA was amended to include adjacent wetlands, eight consecutive presidential administrations, Republican and Democratic, have interpreted the law to cover wetlands that the court has now excluded. Kavanaugh said that by narrowing the act to cover only adjoining wetlands, the court's new test will have quote "significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States." In addition to joining Kavanaugh's opinion, the court's liberals, signed on to a separate opinion by Justice Elena Kagan. Pointing to the air and water pollution cases, she accused the majority of appointing itself instead of Congress as the national policymaker on the environment. President Biden, in a statement, called the decision "disappointing." It "upends the legal framework that has protected America's waters for decades," he said. "It also defies the science that confirms the critical role of wetlands in safeguarding our nation's streams, rivers, and lakes from chemicals and pollutants that harm the health and wellbeing of children, families, and communities."
"I don't think its an overstatement to say its catastrophic for the Clean Water act," said Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation. Wetlands play an "enormous role in protecting the nation's water," he said. "They're really the kidneys of water systems and they're also the sponges. They absorb a lot of water on the landscape. So they're very important water features and they're very important to the quality of the water that we drink, swim, fish, boat and recreate in."
Suicide cult (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you are bringing the rest of us along with you, and I, for one, am getting tired of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Just live here for awhile, eventually you get used to the guns and nimnods who go around sporting them as if they are brave souls ready to out and kill dinner or anything else that gets in their way. If they had any balls, they go out with nothing but their bare hands and compete directly with the wildlife.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Suicide cult (Score:5, Insightful)
That question is easy to answer: USA became a suicide cult when it limited personal rights, like owning the property, owning guns and, the latest tidbit, limiting the free speech. Below is the John Stossel video about the EPA.
Green Monster [youtube.com]
EPA was suing people for removing debris under the bridge arguing that they're "endangering wetlands". Good thing that SCOTUS has limited their powers. If only they did the same to DHS and DOJ. Any cutting down on the powers of the regulatory agencies is as welcome as it gets.
And by personal rights you also meant to include one's body autonomy, right? Wouldn't want the government dictating what you can do with your own body, would we?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are old enough to fuck...you are old enough to figure out how to work and pay for the consequences of your actions.
You're sexual decisions are not a ticket to my tax dollars, I'm not here to support you and your decisions.
Frankly, I'm for legalized abortions...it should be an option to I guess about 15 weeks or so....
But either way, my tax dollars are not there to supplement someone else's bad decisions.
Re:Suicide cult (Score:5, Insightful)
"And by personal rights you also meant to include one's body autonomy, right? Wouldn't want the government dictating what you can do with your own body, would we?"
Once you are an adult and assumed responsible for your decisions, and as long as no other persons, say for instance the viable unborn baby you may be carrying, is harmed, then yes.
The record for survival of a premature birth is 21 weeks, if you care to look it up.
If you're Catholic, you can't eat eggs on Friday because they're chickens.
Here's the deal, you continually spout nonsense about a bunch of cells being a "person" and how it must be protected at all costs, even if it kills the mother, but the best you do is give "thoughts and prayers" as real, live children are slaughtered en masse every other month, all the while claiming bans don't work. When you're done with your hypocritical claims about "protecting" a life, get back to me. Until then, if it's not your body, you have no say in what someone else does to their own body, including women having abortions because in the end, not only is it not your body, you're not going to lift a finger to help her.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, exactly!
The hypocrisy is really showing. I don't see much effort to protect and improve the lives that are already here.
And their argument fails on many fronts. Here's another great way to think about it is this scenario: Should I be compelled by the State, via threat of incarceration, to donate my bone marrow to save the life of a 6 year old leukemia sufferer?
I think most people of either political persuasion would argue "no" - that's a pretty draconian and authoritarian policy
But it's exactly the
Re: There are two bodies to consider (Score:3)
Originalism is the absolute stupidest take on the constitution that is possible for a person to have. We do not live in the 18th century. The realities of our 21st century society are very different than those of the 18th century. The knowledge we have about how the universe works in the 21st century is much greater than it was in the 18th century. Likewise, how society is run in the 21st century must be adapted to the knowledge and realities that we have in the 21st century. The 9th amendment to the Consti
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you are taking originalism properly. Take guns for instance. You should be allowed to own one muzzle-loading firearm. You get to use it while part of a well-regulated militia and these days that means your state's National Guard. You get to use it while on manoeuver with said Guard but only under the watchful eye of your commander. And no sneaky popping it off on your own time or we get to wrap it around your neck.
Re: There are two bodies to consider (Score:2)
Also, the abortion issue is 100% about the body autonomy of the mother. Hereâ(TM)s why.
Imagine that somebody has a rare kidney disease, and if they donâ(TM)t get a kidney transplant they will die. Due to circumstances, you are the only person on the planet who is a donor match. You have to give up one of your kidneys (a perfectly safe operation that will leave you just fine and healthy) in order for this person to live. The law does not allow you to be forced to give up that kidney. You are perfec
Re: There are two bodies to consider (Score:2)
Speaking of 18th century vs, 21st, it is incredible that in 2023, slashdotâ(TM)s Unicode rendering is still broken.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Get a Constitutional Amendment that the SCOTUS cannot ignore...
What a bloody stupid way to run a country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
We shouldn't be forced to take unproven unreliable and dangerous "vaccines" in order to participate in society. Right?
Absolutely, if that ever were to happen, I would be against it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you do not agree with people in your area, you are always free to move to the area with more agreeable people. Right?
If you're wealthy enough and don't care about preserving the land for future generations. Lucky thing all Americans are rich and uncaring. Right?
Re: Suicide cult (Score:3)
No, it does make sense ya dumb ass. We all live on this planet. Pollution does not respect operations no matter how many freedom coupons you have in the back. Weâ(TM)ve one plant. Youâ(TM)re a failure.
Re: Suicide cult (Score:2)
Doesnâ(TM)t make sense. Auto correct, helluva drug. ðY(TM)
Re: Suicide cult (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, because it is a well-known fact that water molecules think it is the height of irresponsibility to wander from one pool to another.
Remember, EPA was the agency that... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They were also the agency whose incompetence resulted in cleaning up the air and polluted waterways in the last century. Those naughty bureaucrats never learn, do they?
Re: (Score:2)
...decided to recklessly shutdown the containment facility in New York City.
Ghostbusters is such neoliberal propaganda.
"Defying the science" is irrelevant here (Score:5, Funny)
I don't like this decision, but the Supreme Court makes decisions based on its justices' interpretation of US law, nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd mod the parent Funny if I had mod points...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"So this leaves it to interpretation."
And the body Constitutionally mandated to provide interpretation has done so.
The only failures in all this are the usual 535 layabouts who can't write a clear law.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, they're not supposed to overturn established law. And this one, as Kavanaugh said, was quite well established. That has been the big outrage recently. Not just the fact that the laws which they've been overturning have been important, and not just the fact that the supreme court has been packed, but also the fact that they are und
Re: (Score:2)
... also the fact that they are undermining our entire legislative system by doing this.
FIFY: They are undermining the administrative system which has unconstitutionally delegated the authority of Congress to unelected bureaucrats. In this case, they did so in a unanimous judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The entire point was government bureaucracies were exceeding the authority granted by Congress. SCOTUS didn't overturn any laws. They told agencies to stop making up laws. It's not limited to the EPA and it's about damn time something was done about it.
Re: (Score:3)
noting that since 1977 when the CWA was amended to include adjacent wetlands, eight consecutive presidential administrations, Republican and Democratic, have interpreted the law to cover wetlands that the court has now excluded
That's what established law is, and that's what the supreme court has overturned. You might not like it, you might not agree with it, but it was certainly established.
The proper way to overturn established laws is by passing new laws. This is something for congress to do, not the supreme court. This is how our legislative system is supposed to work, this is what's laid out in the constitution, and this is what the supreme court is undermining.
Re:"Defying the science" is irrelevant here (Score:5, Informative)
Nowhere does it define "when" or "what time of the year". I bet many wetlands are seasonal.
I was purchasing a 20 acre plot in the country once (on a lease to own contract) and was working out how to build a home on it. The most desirable part of the property turned out to be a granite knoll. In trying to work out how to put in a septic tank and drain field, the consultant walked us down the knoll to the edge of the property where a small pond was located. It was pretty much the only option for a drainfield as everywhere else was granite.
I went "Oh this should work well. We can end the pipe right about here." The consultant then explained that the regulations prohibited a drainfield on "wetlands", and further noted that "wetlands" encompassed any land with evidence that it had ever been inundated. Seasons be damned! That 100 year flood left evidence of flooding on all of this permeable surface. So you can forget about putting a drain field here at all.
Re: (Score:2)
So my guess is that after today's ruling you would have been able to do that, because the pond wasn't continuously connected to the water system.
Re: "Defying the science" is irrelevant here (Score:3)
Re:"Defying the science" is irrelevant here (Score:5, Insightful)
the Supreme Court makes decisions based on its justices' interpretation of US law
... where that interpretation is heavily influenced by the justices' ideology.
I recognize that this court has the authority, but I don't recognize its legitimacy.
Re:"Defying the science" is irrelevant here (Score:5, Interesting)
Every single justice agreed with the core result in this case (that the EPA could not regulate the property in question). They just differed on how far beyond the EPA's reach this property is, and how lower courts should handle closer cases.
What would it take for you to think the Court made a legitimate decision?
Re: (Score:2)
I recognize that this court has the authority, but I don't recognize its legitimacy.
I suppose you don't have to. But the people with badges and guns do.
Re: (Score:3)
the Supreme Court makes decisions based on its justices' interpretation of US law
... where that interpretation is heavily influenced by the justices' ideology.
I recognize that this court has the authority, but I don't recognize its legitimacy.
Furthermore, the justices are technically not required to based their decisions on the law or the Constitution. And if they were, it wouldn't matter because they are the authority of last resort. That is, if everyone else in the country disagreed with the five justices, no one else's opinions count. They are also not required to based their decisions on logic or morality or the best interests of the country. And if they were, it wouldn't matter because they are the authority of last resort.
That is, then
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have completely misunderstood the role of the Supreme Court, its purview, function, and relationship with the other two branches. These matters are thoroughly documented, you may want to take a look.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
noun: legitimacy
1.
conformity to the law or to rules.
"he has undermined the legitimacy of the criminal justice system"
(with reference to a child) the quality of being legitimate.
"disputes over the legitimacy of heirs"
2.
ability to be defended with logic or justification; validity.
"it is difficult to judge the legitimacy of the rumour"
you're welcome.
Re: "Defying the science" is irrelevant here (Score:2)
Well, their interpretation make the law, so I guess you're right on that count. . . But in this case the Court interpreted Congress' use of "adjacent", to mean "adjoining." Normally, Congress' words should be given their ordinary meaning.
For example: Most homeowners have a garage that is adjacent to their home, and some of these people have the garage adjoining the home. The Originalists chose an unusually restrictive interpretation of "adjacent" because they didn't want the EPA to have the power that has b
Re: "Defying the science" is irrelevant here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If Congress had meant "adjoining," they would have used that word. The fact that they used a broader term is proof that "adjoining" is too limited. The Court might properly have looked to the purpose of the law to find the limiting factor. For example, if there was a law against burning materials in an area that might endanger adjacent structures, the outer boundary might be a matter of debate, but your neighbor's garage would certainly fall within the statute. The Harlan Crow Society are playing fast and
That's nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
And Clarence Thomas is a bought man. There's so much corruption there it's insane. And he's ruled on cases involving the man paying his bribes.
This court is not legitimate. Barret couldn't name the 5 freedoms granted by the 1st amendment during her confirmation hearing. That's not a legal question, it's high school civics.
These judges are politic
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
When Roe v. Wade was originally decided one of the judges completely invented rights that aren't in the Constitution. Totally made them up.
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution says nothing about interracial marriage but Thomas thinks it’s just fine.
The constitution says a bunch about it (Score:2)
That said, there's already challenges to Loving v Virginia being plotted out. Birth control's on the chopping block too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
When Roe v. Wade was originally decided one of the judges completely invented rights that aren't in the Constitution. Totally made them up.
Even honest legal scholars that are pro-abortion admit that Roe was basically SCOTUS legislating from the bench in 1972 ("the right thing decided wrongly"). Seven of the justices supported abortion, and they made it the law of the land, period. They found whatever tenuous arguments they thought might support the decision, and tossed it in the pot. Roe, in terms of Constitutional Law, was a haphazard mess, a jumble of junk to support a predetermined outcome. The people complaining about Alito citing an English judge from the 16th century apparently missed Harry Blackmun throwing in Roman jurisprudence to his ruling.
Roe never should have come before SCOTUS. It's a state issue, and it's back where it belongs, on the state level. Californians want abortion, and have it. Alabamians don't, and thus don't have it. And that's the way it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not forget that the scare of the day was overpopulation.
"In 1973, Hugh Moore's Population Crisis Committee and John D. Rockefeller III's Population Council both publicly supported abortion rights following Roe.[145] Previously, public support for abortion rights within the population control movement instead came from less established organizations such as Zero Population Growth.[146] An exception was Planned Parenthood-World Population, which supported repealing all laws against abortion in 1969.[147
That wasn't a factor (Score:4, Insightful)
Conservatives (not right wingers, Conservatives) have no fucking idea what they gave up just so they could criminalized abortion. You gave up each and every privacy protection you had as enumerated in the constitution. Now as long as it's a State government doing the jackbooting you can be jackbooted and can't say a damn thing for the next 65 years (that's how long until the current right wing majority goes away).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose killing someone who you've hidden in your closet without their consent is a privacy issue as well...
Equating abortion to murder is always a sign that you have nothing worthwhile to say. Your kind never wants to deal with the repercussions of unwanted children, but you want them to exist so that you can send them to war.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit (Score:3)
Make no Mistake, overturning Roe screwed you over. Massively. To do it they had to blow out that 100+ years of privacy protections guaranteed by the constitution. The gov't can literally do anything to you now. As long as it's a State Government. Which for some insane reason
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing that actually worries me most is that the technical argument was that because abortion didnt exist (It actually did, but this is a somewhat delusional court right now) when the due process clause was ratified in the 1800s it cant be protected.
This has implications that are rather relevant to today. Unlike Abortion the internet actually wasnt around when the 14th ammendment was drafted. That means we have no constitutional protections against *anything* related to the govt introducing invasive internet laws, if this ruling is to be held as precedent (and as a supreme court constitutional ruling, it surely will).
Re: (Score:2)
Wonder why the 4th amendment was passed. 3rd too
Re: (Score:2)
Because those are specific rights. Not a generalized arbitrary right to privacy that covers whatever the current fad is. I would like to point out that what the federal government could actually do was pretty limited right up until FDR threatened the court and got them to bend the Commerce Clause into it's current non-euclidian shape, and so a general right to privacy wouldn't have been needed. I'd also note that right up until Wickard v Filburn, amendments were passed regularly and significantly impacted h
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. I guess along the same lines Americans don't have freedom of expression, you can speak and use a press to print flyers, newspapers etc, but not a printer or a web page or even hand writing and drawings as the 1st only says ...
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
Re: (Score:2)
Not just no, but hell no (Score:3)
Roe v Wade WAS NOT an accident or an activist court. It was the natural result of decades and decades of judicial precedent and rulings on your constitutional rights to privacy and freedom from the gov't.
And you got it overturned. Congrats. Good job Mr Small Gov't Conservative. You just ripped ou
Re: That's nonsense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, SCOTUS has decided that the Legislative branch can't use legislation to invest a defined scope of its power into a federal agency. Nor hand the administration of that agency to the Executive branch. Basically the goal is to outlaw all federal agencies and require Congress to micromanage ever decision. Sure it flies in the face of 250 years of history, but hey justices get to interpret the Constitution according whatever metric the choose.
At any point the President can temporarily halt what most federa
I'm surprised that you're suprised (Score:2)
It's a matter of degrees. Every agency defines its processes, procedures, and policies. Some agencies have more leeway than others on their scope, depending on how Congress or the Constitution defines them. The Armed Forces, FBI, NASA, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, etc all have policies that they update themselves. Many agencies are ran under the Executive branch, and some have a Secretary or Director role appointed by the President overseeing that agency.
Re: (Score:2)
ditto. I wish I had several million lying around to buy one of the Supreme Court members.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, they've invented a way to contain pollution at state borders?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then you will really enjoy a nice hot world of the future and more land area in the U.S. being part of the Atlantic Ocean. And be careful with any strangers you meet, piss one off and s/he might just shoot your ass with his recently unconcealed gun.
now MR burns can build the wetland nuclear power (Score:2)
now MR burns can build the wetland nuclear power and pump out 3 eyed fish on the side
Every puddle is not a wetland. (Score:5, Insightful)
The EPA seems to think if there is water (even some of the time) it is a wetland. I doubt that is what lawmakers intended, and the SCOTUS seems to agree. Congress can clarify the law if they so choose.
Re:Every puddle is not a wetland. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the law was already clear, in part it states "navigable waters" as a definition of what will be regulated. The EPA has tried to manage "wetlands" that were nothing more that tractor tire marks filled with rain water (commonly referred to as puddles) on farms in CA or small streams that are not navigable. The court just told them to follow the existing law and to stay in their lane. Forcing the government to follow it's own rules (laws) is not a bad thing. If you don't like the law you can petition your government to change it.
Re:Every puddle is not a wetland. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the law was already clear, in part it states "navigable waters" as a definition of what will be regulated. The EPA has tried to manage "wetlands" that were nothing more that tractor tire marks filled with rain water (commonly referred to as puddles) on farms in CA or small streams that are not navigable. The court just told them to follow the existing law and to stay in their lane. Forcing the government to follow it's own rules (laws) is not a bad thing. If you don't like the law you can petition your government to change it.
Yes, from what I have read about disputes over the EPA's definition in recent years, farmers will be the ones absolutely rejoicing today.
https://www.fb.org/news-releas... [fb.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, from what I have read about disputes over the EPA's definition in recent years, farmers will be the ones absolutely rejoicing today.
Yes, Bill Gates is going to be ecstatic [popularmechanics.com]. You think this is going to help the average farmer? hahAhAHAHaHaHAHa
P.S. The Farm Bureau doesn't speak for small farmers [missouriindependent.com], HTH HAND.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Every puddle is not a wetland. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not even American, but I'm always interested in world affairs and I've read lots about the EPA abuses over the years. Rest assured we have the same problem with government overreach where I live.
https://heartlandernews.com/20... [heartlandernews.com]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/m... [wsj.com] (paywalled)
Re: (Score:2)
When your citations are a piece labeled "opinion" and a paywalled article no one can read you're not instilling much confidence in your knowledge of the US.
Re: (Score:2)
You are hopefully free to exercise your own search engine skills. Some terms you may or may not choose to include are "WOTUS", "wetlands", "navigable", "interstate", "significant nexus", and of course "EPA".
There is actually a lot of highly interrelated case law to enjoy if you are so inclined.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, the paywalled WSJ article is an opinion piece titled "Watch Out for That Puddle, Soon It Could Be Federally Regulated" so not much else there
Re:Every puddle is not a wetland. (Score:5, Informative)
The EPA seems to think if there is water (even some of the time) it is a wetland.
Citation required. I get that you may not like the EPA, but you're making a claim without providing any evidence, not even an example.
EPA website [epa.gov] definition confirms that surface water during some of the year is a wetland: "Wetlands are areas where water covers the soil, or is present either at or near the surface of the soil all year or for varying periods of time during the year".
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another unconstitutional power grab by SCOTUS (Score:5, Funny)
This doesn't seem to me to be within SCOTUS's purview. Congress already has oversight over the EPA, and has the ability to micromanage it. If Congress didn't want the EPA doing what it was doing, it would have intervened a long time ago.
If the EPA is doing something unconstitutional - treading on rights, abusing due process, etc, then sure, SCOTUS should get involved. But second guessing what Congress means? Congress is already able to rein in the EPA if it goes outside of the mandate Congress believes it has. It's none of SCOTUS's business. Arguably it's completely unconstitutional and yet another sign we have a rogue court.
Oh sure. The right way for this situation to be handled is for Congress to amend the law by adding a clause: "and when we say navigable waters we really mean navigable waters". I'm sure that will stop the EPA this time. And if it doesn't, they can further add "no, we really really do". No need to involve court to force them to the obey law as written, no sir, when law is ignored the right course of action is to amend the law with several "no, we really really mean it" clauses.
Re:Another unconstitutional power grab by SCOTUS (Score:4, Insightful)
If the EPA is doing something unconstitutional - treading on rights, abusing due process, etc, then sure, SCOTUS should get involved.
Interesting you should mention due process. The Sacketts have been fighting for this for literally decades. Good on them for persevering through so many years of governmental bullshit.
https://www.cato.org/sites/cat... [cato.org]
Re: (Score:3)
"If the EPA is doing something unconstitutional - treading on rights, "
That is exactly what the EPA was doing. The property owners were prohibited from using their property because the EPA said the puddles might drain under the road, through a swamp and make their way into water that a boat could float in.
Control the water and you control a civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
If the EPA is doing something unconstitutional - treading on rights, abusing due process, etc, then sure, SCOTUS should get involved
From the farmers' point of view, the EPA certainly did tread on their rights and deprive them of due process. Specifically, property rights, the right to do with their property what they want to; i.e., farm the land or build buildings on it. We might disagree with the decision, but there certainly are rights at stake here.
Re:Another unconstitutional power grab by SCOTUS (Score:4, Insightful)
"second guessing what Congress means"
That is LITERALLY the primary role of the Supreme Court.
Such a Bad Opinion, They Broke Ranks (Score:5, Informative)
In today's court, the juiciest dissents come when the ideologically separated sides break ranks. In this case, Justice Kavanaugh wasn't having it.
I write separately because I respectfully disagree with the Court’s new test for assessing when wetlands are covered by the Clean Water Act. The Court concludes that wetlands are covered by the Act only when the wetlands have a “continuous surface connection” to waters of the United States—that is, when the wetlands are “adjoining” covered waters. Ante, at 20, 22 (internal quotation marks omitted). In my view, the Court’s “continuous surface connection” test departs from the statutory text, from 45 years of consistent agency practice, and from this Court’s precedents. The Court’s test narrows the Clean Water Act’s coverage of “adjacent” wetlands to mean only “adjoining” wetlands. But “adjacent” and “adjoining” have distinct meanings: Adjoining wetlands are contiguous to or bordering a covered water, whereas adjacent wetlands include both (i) those wetlands contiguous to or bordering a covered water, and (ii) wetlands separated from a covered water only by a man-made dike or barrier, natural river berm, beach dune, or the like. By narrowing the Act’s coverage of wetlands to only adjoining wetlands, the Court’s new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States. Therefore, I respectfully concur only in the Court’s judgment.
Looks like Kavanaugh was being a good stickler for vocabulary. Adjacent and adjoining are not synonyms and by conflating the two terms the majority sets a new official interpretation of the Clean Water Act.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like Kavanaugh was being a good stickler for vocabulary.
That Word-a-Day calendar Anheuser-Busch sent him helps. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Glancing Geese test redux (Score:5, Informative)
This is consistent with the Supreme Court ruling in 2001 which also clarified the definition of navigable waters. Seems some people just needed reminding.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/S... [wsj.com] (paywalled)
https://www.reedsmith.com/en/p... [reedsmith.com]
And here is a really good backgrounder on the case that the court just ruled on.
https://www.cato.org/sites/cat... [cato.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The law explicitly states that it covers "adjacent wetlands", the supreme court ignored that and changed it to "adjoining"(which means wetlands separated by a dike or other structure no longer qualify). It has nothing to do with how navigable waterways are defined.
I think the words you are looking for are "significant nexus".
Legislating from the Bench (Score:2)
You don't seem to understand that concept (Score:2)
"Legislating from the bench" is pretty self-explanatory - the idea of of a judge or judges writing a law (the job of a legislature) and enacting it (the job of the executive branch). That's NOT what happened here. In this case, the justices did precisely their job: they ruled that actions undertaken by some executive branch bureaucrats were an unconstitutional overreach. The justices did NOT, effectively, write a new law, but rather said "that thing happening over there is not compatible with the Constituti
Shit where they eat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good ol' 'Muricans fighting for their freedom to shit where they eat.
I think these folks just wanted to build a house, for the last 18 years. Anything else that flows from this case should have been avoided long, long ago by adults instead of becoming a SCOTUS precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps too late, by a generation or two, depending on which part of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Kangaroo court issuing kangaroo diktats again. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)