EPA Removes Federal Protections For Most of the Country's Wetlands (npr.org) 122
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: The Environmental Protection Agency removed federal protections for a majority of the country's wetlands on Tuesday to comply with a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The EPA and Department of the Army announced a final rule amending the definition of protected "waters of the United States" in light of the decision in Sackett v. EPA in May, which narrowed the scope of the Clean Water Act and the agency's power to regulate waterways and wetlands. A 2006 Supreme Court decision determined that wetlands would be protected if they had a "significant nexus" to major waterways. This year's court decision undid that standard. The EPA's new rule "removes the significant nexus test from consideration when identifying tributaries and other waters as federally protected," the agency said.
In May, Justice Samuel Alito said the navigable U.S. waters regulated by the EPA under the Clean Water Act do not include many previously regulated wetlands. Writing the court's decision, he said the law includes only streams, oceans, rivers and lakes, and wetlands with a "continuous surface connection to those bodies." The EPA said the rule will take effect immediately. "The agencies are issuing this amendment to the 2023 rule expeditiously -- three months after the Supreme Court decision -- to provide clarity and a path forward consistent with the ruling," the agency said. As a result of the rule change, protections for many waterways and wetlands will now fall to states.
In May, Justice Samuel Alito said the navigable U.S. waters regulated by the EPA under the Clean Water Act do not include many previously regulated wetlands. Writing the court's decision, he said the law includes only streams, oceans, rivers and lakes, and wetlands with a "continuous surface connection to those bodies." The EPA said the rule will take effect immediately. "The agencies are issuing this amendment to the 2023 rule expeditiously -- three months after the Supreme Court decision -- to provide clarity and a path forward consistent with the ruling," the agency said. As a result of the rule change, protections for many waterways and wetlands will now fall to states.
Supreme Court's War on America (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just another step in the Supreme Court's establishment of monopoly capitalism as the controlling law of the land.
The Citizens United case opened up all elected officials to bribery by corporations. All of your "elected" representatives are now owned by corporations and billionaires.
Now we have them nullifying the authority to regulate environmental protection. Corporations will be free to "develop" land without those pesky environmentalists bothering them with frivolous lawsuits protecting flora, fauna and wetland buffers (which prevent flooding from hurricanes).
We live in a corporate kleptocracy... get used to getting fleeced more and more every day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Supreme Court's War on America (Score:5, Informative)
Oh for fucks sake, can you at least try and understand Administrative Law before spewing such gibberish?
Administrative law is a division of law governing the activities of executive branch agencies of government. Administrative law includes executive branch rule making (executive branch rules are generally referred to as "regulations"), adjudication, and the enforcement of laws. Administrative law is considered a branch of public law. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There are exceptional conservative thinkers. But not many of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Supreme Court's War on America (Score:2)
And strictly constitutionally speaking, administrative law should not exist, the administration (executive branch) should not make laws, the legislature should do so.
Yes, the legislature has made the decision to hand over power throughout the years, however in this and many other cases the administration has subsequently gone far beyond their defined powers.
Administrative judges donâ(TM)t answer to anyone, they arenâ(TM)t held to follow constitutional rules etc, administrative trials do not have t
the Constitution and administrative agencies (Score:2)
I'd strike "strictly" from that statement.
I would have been a swing vote at the Constitutional Convention, and my politics have always been on the straight line between Hamilton and Jefferson (although they've drifted towards the former as I've aged).
And, yes, I'm a lawyer.
The most persuasive legal authority at the time of the convention would have been Blackstone. And *his* explanation of the roles of executive and legislative authority put policy choice in the legislature (parliament/congress), and the *
Re: (Score:2)
As a layperson, I see Congress's primary tool against "runaway administration" as budgetary
This tool has become worn and blunted (shutting down the government is not really popular and those doing it can get negative polls), so they have made the courts a primary tactic in "reigning in the administration"
We have gotten into this situation through intransigent political polarization, which is now reflected in that long-term right-wing "space shot" project, the Supreme Court
Alito floated some carp about water
Re: (Score:2)
I'll start by noting that the "6-3 conservative majority" is a myth. It just isn't so.
The actual split is 4-3-2, with conservatives being the smallest block (Alito & Roberts).
There are 4 constitutionalists of various stripes (literalists, original intent, strict construction, etc.). more often than not, but far from "usually", most of them form a majority with the conservatives in individual cases. And other times, all 4 vote with the liberals.
I've really never seen a suggestion before that wetlands l
Re: (Score:2)
Cool, now do abortion.
Re: Supreme Court's War on America (Score:2)
UNdo the supreme court (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just another step in the Supreme Court's establishment of monopoly capitalism as the controlling law of the land.
It's the Supreme Court's response to government overreach.
It's the legislature that creates the laws. If the Supreme Court finds the law unclear and generates overreach, then it's the job of the legislature to clarify the law.
The legislature could give the EPA authority over the wetlands.
The Citizens United case opened up all elected officials to bribery by corporations. All of your "elected" representatives are now owned by corporations and billionaires. Now we have them nullifying the authority to regulate environmental protection.
Just exactly how is the Supreme Court nullifying the authority here? The authority comes from legislation, and the existing legislation didn't give them authority in the first place.
And just how are corporations nullifying authority? Because the Supreme Court agreed with the corporations that the EPA didn't have that authority?
We live in a corporate kleptocracy... get used to getting fleeced more and more every day.
We live in a world of divisiveness fueled by spiteful hatred. This is not a strategy for success.
A better strategy is to try bringing people together instead of throwing random hatred at your personal bugaboo.
horrifying... but probably right (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the legislature that creates the laws. If the Supreme Court finds the law unclear and generates overreach, then it's the job of the legislature to clarify the law. The legislature could give the EPA authority over the wetlands.
I find this decision horrifying: the EPA should have the ability to regulate people from destroying wetlands, since are critical to the environment and ecosystem.
...but it also seems to be correct. If the act allow the EPA to regulate discharges into navigable waterways, then if it's not a navigable waterway, they shouldn't be able to regulate it.
Re:horrifying... but probably right (Score:4, Insightful)
find this decision horrifying: the EPA should have the ability to regulate people from destroying wetlands, since are critical to the environment and ecosystem.
The Constitution doesn't grant Congress that authority. The EPA exists because Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, not local land use in a state.
Re:horrifying... but probably right (Score:5, Informative)
Water moves across state lines.
The court has decided that Congress has the right to regulate what you grow in your own back yard, because someone else may move a similar plant from one state to another. This may or may not be a good decision, but it is what the Supreme Court has decided in the past. On the other hand, this court appears to be skilled at doublethink, so ....
Re:horrifying... but probably right (Score:4, Insightful)
The court has decided that Congress has the right to regulate what you grow in your own back yard, because someone else may move a similar plant from one state to another.
That decision was Wickard v. Filburn in 1942, which ratified the New Deal's "Marketing Order" authority to limit what farers could grow on their own land, even if the extra product was not sold into interstate commerce. We of the dark side relish the possibility that the current SCOTUS will reverse what we consider one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. If they do that. it will have effect of drastically limiting what federal agencies can regulate.
Re:horrifying... but probably right (Score:4, Informative)
I doubt the current Supreme Court would reverse Wickard v Filburn because there are many other cases that would also need to be reversed, such as Gonzales v. Raich, which would go against their ideology.
On the other hand, this court has shown little regard for logic and intellectual honesty, so perhaps they would reverse one case, but not the others that rely on it.
Re: (Score:2)
I would hope they would overturn this one too...
And it isn't only a conservative thing...there are plenty of democrats that are against this too...otherwise why didn't they make laws legalizing it when they had vast majorities and all 3 branches of govt in recent years (Obama and Biden)?
There are Republi
Re: (Score:3)
otherwise why didn't they make laws legalizing it when they had vast majorities and all 3 branches of govt in recent years (Obama and Biden)?
Because Congress has a finite amount of time to move legislation through regular order. You could just as easily ask why the NRA didn't get concealed carry reciprocity between 2017 and 2019 when the GOP had the trifecta. For better or worse these issues were not at the top of the agenda for those Congresses.
Biden's administration is trying to do it through rule making [politico.com], so we'll see what happens there. Not as good as an Act of Congress and also something that takes time, but better than nothing. The rea
Re: (Score:2)
While I'd like to see movement on this...I have to hope that the "rule making" fails horribly.
That isn't the route that law was supposed to be made and the president is not a king and can NOT make law, which IMHO, is exactly what the office is and has been trying for way too long now.
But I agree....it
Re: (Score:2)
It was a very poor decision, IMHO....
And potentially, little by little, the current SCOTUS going forward can dismantle this, or possibly at some point, overturn it and set things more the way the US was intended, and halt the vast overreach
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Water moves across state lines.
And authoritarians love to invoke the fundamental interconnectedness of all things to arrogate unconstitutional power to the federal government.
I don't like the current Supreme Court, but they got this one right.
Re:Supreme Court's War on America (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just another step in the Supreme Court's establishment of monopoly capitalism as the controlling law of the land.
It's just the opposite of that.
protections for many waterways and wetlands will now fall to states.
Level of protection can now be democratically determined by people who vote on these matters at the state level, as opposed to being imposed unelected officials of the EPA.
We live in a corporate kleptocracy... get used to getting fleeced more and more every day.
Great FUD rant though, really.
Re:Supreme Court's War on America (Score:4, Insightful)
protections for many waterways and wetlands will now fall to states.
Level of protection can now be democratically determined by people who vote on these matters at the state level, as opposed to being imposed unelected officials of the EPA.
I predict that any law will be met with challenges on the basis that this is covered by the Interstate Commerce clause and that states don't have the authority to regulate this.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"democratically determined by people who vote on these matters at the state level", except many states are massively gerrymandered. Pols that are heavily funded by the pollution industry can just step right in and make sure nothing can stop it.
Re: Supreme Court's War on America (Score:4, Insightful)
Thatâ(TM)s a great point, I hope it all works out well for you when the state upstream of yours democratically votes to starting dumping pollution into its waterways.
Re: (Score:2)
What could go wrong with letting a group on unelected individuals that answer to no one decide the fate of hundreds of millions of people?
Nothing is perfect, but history is well on the side of letting people control their own fates. The fact that you happen to agree with the small group on people, this time, isn't a great argument for an authoritarian system.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"You better pay attention to which state you live in, cause a lot of red states won’t care at all about the quality of their water."
Actually many of the red states and a few of the blue ones have long histories of their own water laws that fit their conditions. Letting a bureaucrat 2000 miles away make rules for someplace he/she has never seen, doesn't understand, and has no interest in except to signal virtue or to "preserve the environment in case I want to take a vacation there someday and to hell
Re: (Score:2)
You better pay attention to which state you live in, cause a lot of red states won’t care at all about the quality of their water. Anyone that matters can drink bottled. Tap is for the poors, and by todays conservative philosophy, poor people are only poor because they deserve it.
Like in a 3rd world country. How pathetically primitive.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell people that actually live in third world countries this so they quit migrating here.
Re: (Score:2)
They can read this stuff on the Internet and simply refuse to believe it. It is quite unbelievable to be fair.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans aren't going to outlaw birth control, that's ridiculous.
They've tried to do it before, and they will try to do it again. It is ridiculous, but when has that ever stopped them?
Re: (Score:2)
They tried to outlaw birth control or they said that it shouldn't be mandated by the Feds that all insurances had to cover it at 100%?
If you are talking about actually outlawing birth control, show me the year and let's see what the democrats were for and against that year - since it would be equally relevant by your logic of "they tried before".
Re: Supreme Court's War on America (Score:2)
The Republicans now control the supreme Court, so when it comes to issues going before the supreme Court, the Democrats are irrelevant. You are prevaricating. Boring...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, bullshit. Federal power over wetlands was always based on the commerce clause, and even now, after this change, most still have nothing to do with commerce. And no, migratory birds are not commerce.
Wickard v. Filburn needs to die. This is the United States.
>Citizens United
...was poorly decided. Properly argued, it had nothing to do with speech rights. Corporations are ar
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your analysis and the way the article was written is that the "protections" extended into areas that are NOT wetlands according to the legislation that established the EPA! The EPA was calling a field that got rained on - wetlands of the United States where the EPA enabling legislation defines it as "salvageable waters." That wet once a year field isn't something a boat is going to get through.
In this case the Supreme Court reigned in a rogue US government agency!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Supreme Court's War on America (Score:2)
The Supreme Court is now writing laws rather than just determining constitutionality.
They have usurped Congress and the Executive branches.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Supreme Court's War on America (Score:2)
While there are many explanations, one that stands out is the growth of inequality, a problem stemming from modern neoliberal capitalism, which can also be linked in many ways to the erosion of democracy. Economic inequality inevitably leads to political inequality, albeit to varying degrees across countries. In a country like the US, which has virtually no constraints on campaign contributions, âoeone person, one voteâ has morphed into âoeone dollar, one voteâ.
This political inequality
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Let Wyoming law allow the dumping PCBs directly into a hole 1 ft from the North Platte just upstream of Henry, NE. The hole isn't a navigable waterway, so doesn't run afoul of the supreme court.
Sure. Let the states regulate it. Great plan, trollman.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nebraska can sue Wyoming. And the Platte feeds into the Missouri River, which is navigable. So if the PCBs are detectable downstream, the EPA can step in. If they are not detectable, then what does Nebraska have to whine about?
Re: (Score:2)
You know that a court, in addition to granting money as compensation for past conduct, can also enter an injunctive order forbidding future conduct.
So it's not "gets some money" it's "the court orders them to stop doing that and never do it again".
Re: States rights (Score:2)
Re:States rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, obviously the entire critique of "state A will dump toxic waste B into hole C, poisoning people in state D" is entirely and specifically limited to Wyoming and PCBs. No other state and no other chemical could possibly be of concern under the aforementioned model.
Come on. This is a basic market externality. When was the last time a US company was fined in excess of the amount of money their malfeasance made them? It basically never happens.
Without a federal agency empowered to actually DO something to protect these waters they're going to be systematically exploited and people are going to suffer and die.
Re:States rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Without a federal agency empowered to actually DO something to protect these waters they're going to be systematically exploited and people are going to suffer and die.
Exactly as happened before the regulations were in place.
It never ceases to amaze me the number of people screaming "That won't happen!" about all the horrible abuses that were already happening to such a severe extent that even the less environmentally conscious citizens of the past demanded the regulations in the first place.
I mean, seriously - do they really think anyone would be talking about removing the regulations if there weren't already a bunch of wealthy interests pushing hard to start dumping toxic waste in the waterways to save a buck? Nobody is pushing expensive cases through the Supreme Court for idealistic purposes.
Heck, they wouldn't even have standing to bring a case in the first place unless they can prove they are being "harmed" by the existing regulations - a.k.a. they already have toxic waste they're having to pay to dispose of properly instead of just dumping.
Re:States rights (Score:4, Interesting)
You conveniently left out that Wyoming produces more coal than any other state in the USA. (Appalachia lives in the popular imagination as the heart of coal country, but Wyoming produces 2x more coal [eia.gov] than West Virginia and Pennsylvania combined.) The mining of coal is an ecological disaster.
It's also really big in oil and gas mining, particularly with the fracking boom. All that fracking fluid is a mess of dangerous chemicals - most of which the public isn't privy to know about, since it's all "proprietary." Curiously, most of the oil and gas industry is exempt [wikipedia.org] from the Clean Water Act. I wonder why...
Finally, the state is criss-crossed with oil and gas pipelines [google.com], and freight rail lines supplementing that capacity. Many of them are near or cross major watersheds and rivers.
Re: (Score:3)
there's practically nothing going on in Wyoming other than what nature does by itself.
There is also quite a bit of fossil fuel industrial - there's some major coal deposits [wikipedia.org] - about 1% of the state is employed in coal mining, and Wyoming is the #1 producing state in coal (not West Virginia or Kentucky) - and a big ass oil refinery [goo.gl] right off I-80 in Sinclair. I hear there might be some toxic shit created by those activities that is not "what nature does by itself."
So I guess what you said there doesn't actually share space with the reality we live in.
Re: (Score:3)
Sackett vs EPA involved a lake in Idaho, or does that confuse you?
The background of the case [nrdc.org]
Michael and Chantell Sackett, who ran an excavation company, sought to develop property a few hundred feet from Priest Lake, a popular vacation site in the Idaho Panhandle, with plans to build a house there. To prepare the lot for construction, the Sacketts began to fill it with gravel. In 2007, responding to a neighbor’s complaint, the EPA halted the work after determining that the Sacketts’ lot containe
Re:States rights (Score:5, Informative)
The irony of the case is that there were houses and docks on the lake itself, a road, their lot surrounded by other houses, a ditch, and another road. This case was not about managing wetlands, it was a petty power play by EPA apparatchiks done because they could. At any point previous they could have allowed the construction and maintained their non-delineated powers, but they refused. The very definition of fucking around and finding out.
Re:States rights (Score:5, Informative)
They "determined" that it was a wetland - but it wasn't.
It was a big flat stretch of sandy ground that occasionally (every few months) had water flowing over it for a short time (i.e., when it rained a lot the water drained across it to the lake). This fit absolutely zero previous definitions of "wetlands." It was a gross overreach by some bureaucrats, who needed a nice hard slapdown to make them stop.
The EPA has also claimed that other places were covered under "Waters of the United States." For example, a ditch. That didn't drain to anywhere else. That was just big enough to float a canoe, maybe. And no, that's not an exaggeration.
For reference, "Waters of the United States" was supposed to be about _navigable_ waters like lakes and rivers, not every creek and pool they can find (or imagine).
Basically, the Supreme Court decision was "stop trying to expand your powers through BS and fantasy."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seasonal wetlands are relevant not just because of the species that use them seasonally (although those do matter) but because polluting them results in the pollution being washed into aquifers, and because developing them results in less water entering aquifers (again, during the season.)
Just admit you don't care about anyone or anything but whatever you want, that would be believable and at least you could claim a kind of integrity.
Re: (Score:3)
A single house lot literally surrounded by other houses and 2 roads and a ditch is not relevant as a seasonal wetland.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Federal government also does not have jurisdiction over such.
They did before the Supremes decided they didn't.
The EPA does have the right to regulate dumping of toxic materials (in water or on land). They just don't have the right to define a puddle or pond on someone's private property as protected from any development.
Without the ability to do the latter, they cannot exercise the former. Not that this is what was happening at all, of course. You're characterizing the land based on the amount of standing water, but wetlands don't have to be mostly covered in water and the definition never depended on that. They can simply be lands that hold a lot of water and lead to aquifers. You want to redefine the word in order to support your argument, while claiming that's what the EP
Re:States rights (Score:4, Informative)
You can even see they know it themselves in the way they describe them:
EPA: https://www.epa.gov/system/fil... [epa.gov]
Army Corp of Engineers: https://www.nao.usace.army.mil... [army.mil]
Re: (Score:2)
That's doesn't lead to the conclusion "we should eliminate national standards" though which is what was being implied. There needs to be some form of federal protections, leaving it to the states is nonviable.
Re: (Score:3)
leaving it to the states is nonviable.
Why?
I find this confusing that people believe that a state within the USA somehow lacks the resources to protect natural resources, or provide other protections like civil liberties, safety and health regulations, or fairly basic public services like fire, police, and paramedics. Canada has a population and economy roughly on par with California, is Canada unable to protect wetlands because of not having sufficient taxes sucked out of the pockets of people in some other location? There's many other exampl
Re:States rights (Score:5, Informative)
1. As I mentioned, the land, and environment doesn't recognize borders. What affects an entire ecosystem can easily carry across multiple state lines and anything interstate is clearly federal jurisdiction.
2. The difference between California and Canada is Canada is a sovereign nation with monopoly use of force and the ability to control it's own currency (it can incur debt). California lacks both of those things. Population size is completely irrelevant to this.
I would mention there was no EPA before 1972 and we had some pretty egregious environmental disasters. I know the federal government has it's problems but it's not like state legislatures and governors are these pictures of upright lawmaking and not even more feckless and corruptible.
These State/Private partnership agreement concepts sounds like possible to work but really they sound far more complicated and honestly with way more bureaucracy that just having a federal EPA. No offense but most "libertarian" solutions when you run them down just turn into having a federal government again for a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
1. As I mentioned, the land, and environment doesn't recognize borders. What affects an entire ecosystem can easily carry across multiple state lines and anything interstate is clearly federal jurisdiction.
People appear to forget that each and every state within the USA is sovereign, but by an interstate agreement they established by law a federal government to manage certain matters of common concern. That is the federal government was "constituted" (which is where "constitution" comes from) with a document signed by these many states. The federal government has no power but what the states grant it. If the federal government goes beyond its defined bounds of law then it is typical for such concerns to go
Re: (Score:2)
1 and 2, take it up with the courts and history. No state in the US has a sovereign currency since what, pre civil war? This is post revolution stuff and the nation figured out pretty quickly that every state having currency and it's own fighting force is nonviable for a functioning nation. That was 18th century and are you seriously arguing this in the 21st? C'mon buddy, this is fun hypothetical but it's over and done and never going back.
Also police forces are not military forces and conflating the two
Re: (Score:2)
Also police forces are not military forces and conflating the two is kinda dishonest.
Not to those guys. They like the influence of the military on our police forces. Quite a few are ex-military, about a quarter.
Re: (Score:2)
Also police forces are not military forces and conflating the two is kinda dishonest.
I'm not conflating the two, you are. Look it up, there's many states with a military force that is distinct from the federal forces, and the National Guard is a part of the federal forces but as part of the reserves. Some states didn't like that the federal government "stole" their state military forces with the creation of the National Guard so they created distinct state defense forces. These forces are not likely to ever see battle but they serve as a pool of people trained much like the National Guar
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate you conceding points 1 and 2, I'll take it. Have a great night.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what congress passing laws and Constitutional Amendments are for....
Re: (Score:2)
That's how the EPA was created and my point.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but they are there to enforce laws made by congress...not to make up new laws/rules on their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let the flooding begin! (Score:4, Insightful)
Wetlands help to substanitally reduce flooding [epa.gov] by absorbing and/or diverting large amounts of water. They also help prevent erosion [nps.gov]. Mississippi is a good example where the loss of wetlands is leading to loss of land [mississipp...rdelta.org].
But hey, what's the big deal? It's only those nimrod scientists giving us facts to ignore.
Re:Let the flooding begin! (Score:5, Informative)
First you referenced "epa.gov" to back up wetlands. Of course they would back themselves.
What I would say is the EPA went way too far. I was driving down a gravel road in Washington state next to some rolling hills and pasture. On the side of the road what looked like a small hole about 10 feet across with water in it. There was a fence around it and 6 signs saying "protected wetland" No inlets, or outlets, just the run off from up the hill that got stuck on the way down. But that not all. Now you can't disturb up to 500ft around that little 10 foot puddle.
If this is what nimrod scientists say is a "wetland" then yes on the nimrod.
I believe if they would stick to what the EPA was intending for wetlands then I don't think this would have happened. Yes, don't put big huge dairy farms right next to rivers. Have rules for building next to lake and waterways. These make sense. Making the whole of a citizens land unable to be used, and making them pay taxes on it, is wrong.
Lastly, I don't accept arguments from the "position of authority" if it doesn't make sense. I've met to many "scientists". Just cause you practice the art of science doesn't mean you are intelligent, or wise.
Re: (Score:2)
I was driving down a gravel road in Washington state next to some rolling hills and pasture. On the side of the road what looked like a small hole about 10 feet across with water in it. There was a fence around it and 6 signs saying "protected wetland" No inlets, or outlets, just the run off from up the hill that got stuck on the way down.
Cool story bro! Ever hear of the water table? And just maybe it's possible for wetlands to be seasonal?
Re: (Score:2)
I expect the 10 feet of water was rare habitat for a big swath of the surrounding land.
"Making the whole of a citizens land unable to be used", as it that landowner didn't know anything about it when they bought the swamp, lol.
Re: (Score:2)
But hey, what's the big deal? It's only those nimrod scientists giving us facts to ignore.
Yes: those darned scientists informed policy that was stopping me making a profit. Those rules are now gone, the resulting floods will be on other people's houses, so that does not affect me, thus I do not care.
Re: (Score:2)
Real wetlands are still protected (Score:5, Informative)
The wetlands withdrawn from protection by the SCOTUS are all those seasonal mud puddles that don't play a significant part in building peat or sheltering unique species. They were placed under EPA control by a miswritten Bush-era law, and Sackett just corrects that error. Nobody is going to be filling in the Everglades.
Re: (Score:2)
Pssst: the Supreme Court exists to determine which laws are Constitutional or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Pssst: the Supreme Court exists to determine which laws are Constitutional or not.
I didn't dispute that. But constitutionality wasn't at issue in this case. You would know that if you bothered to read the judgement.
Everywhere is not a wetland (Score:2)
https://www.aei.org/articles/t... [aei.org]
Not every puddle (or places where puddles might foreseeably form at any time) qualifies as a wetland. Congress can certainly change tha
Like dogs collecting on a bumper (Score:2)
Thank gods right? I know that couple in Idaho are probably totally stoked. Whee-ew. Long time coming. Don't worry, your day will come when you can fill or drain (or nothing at all--go crazy) your metaphorical swamp too! Whatever your issue, the conservative dream is coming true. Coolsies.
Guess all that complaining I hear from the political right in America is just that and they are ungrateful for their victories. Because if you don't know what you've done, you're a poser and you should get to fillin
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is, it was a metaphorical swamp, not an actual one. Some neo-slaveing bureaucrats decided all land that ever becomes wet was really theirs to control and by extension their right to control the people who live there. After all, the ignorant hicks who live there did not go to the "right" universities and have no ability to run their own lives without continuous meticulous supervision by properly anointed members of the Professional Managerial Class, now known as the Rich Men North of Richmon
Extremely dishonest headline (Score:4, Informative)
No, the Environmental Protection Agency has NOT removed federal protections for a majority of the country's wetlands. It has not removed ANY protections from ANY actual wetlands. The EPA had dishonestly labelled all sorts of land in the US as "wetlands" in order to assert control over them, and the court stopped the regulatory overstep and is forcing them to not falsely claim all sorts of non-wetlands are wetlands.
There has been NO CHANGE in the actual status of any actual "wetlands" as congress defined them when it wrote the laws that gave the executive branch such authorities. Had Trump, during his presidency, declared half of America to be Trump resort golf courses, and the courts intervened to say "nope...half the country is not your golf courses", and he then backed down, I can guarantee the slimes who propagandize at NPR every day would NOT report "Interior department takes away most of Trump's golf course land". Same thing. There's been no change in the basic reality of what is a wetland and how such lands are protected; there's just been a limit placed on the EPA's ability to keep expanding its control over land in the USA without any explicit legal authority to do so.
Disclaimer: I have relatives who spent all their money buying a little chunk of farmland in the hopes of building a small retirement home there. There's never been any standing water seen on that land for probably 100 years...NOBODY in any generation alive there today has ever seen any standing water there. Nevertheless, the EPA declared it "wetlands" and made it so the land could neither be built upon, nor sold. Just because some corruptocrat thousands of miles away decides something is so, that does NOT make it so... even if he knows somebody who might benefit from having a government action destroy the value of somebody's property.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The current majority on the court are deranged fascist nuncios of the Republican Party who will rule that Up is Down whenever necessary to arrive at their predetermined conclusion. Denying it just means you have no credibility.
Do these robed psychos even read laws anymore? (Score:2)
These pseudo-judges have no credibility. And, to the extent they fail to credibly root their rulings in actual LAW, they have no authority either.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't the Court that lacks credibility, it's whoever you're parroting.
Re: (Score:2)
These fake judges are essentially a standing committee of January 6 terrorists.
Fake headline (Score:2)
Headline is intended to make you think wetland protection is gone. But it ain't, and it's now simply the same as it was before Obama. Wetlands are still protected. What happened is that scotus said EPA does not have authority over land that is not connected to navigable waterways. Before this ruling, the US govt would come along and say, "oh, you can't build a barn there on your property, because there is some little rill that flows near it." It was typical overreach.
The land that Obama sought to contr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Did the law change between 2006 and 2023? Or did the Justices, once again, just allow their ideology to override the law and prior analysis of the law?
Stare decisis and all that: meaningless with this court, which is happy to impose their own ideology over the actual text of the law and history of jurisprudence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You should read the actual judgement. Kagan, Sottomayer and Jackson concurred with the decision only as a matter of form.
Kagan wrote an opinion where she describes how the other justices are wrong and substituted their own policy for that of Congress'
Re: (Score:2)
Hoping that these rulings can be used as precedent to overrule the ATF and their extreme overreach in recent cases tearing apart the 2A.
Thankfully, this has proven to be an aid in some those endeavors so far.
The ATF is trying to redefine what a machine gun is (bump stock and forced reset triggers) and what a rifle is (pistol brace cases).
Re: (Score:2)
Stop getting your conception of how the US governmen
Re: (Score:3)
Congress creates agencies to focus on specific issues BECAUSE Congress can't possibly operate at the pace required to deal with the issues in question
That's the entire point, they want the government to stop working.
Why? Because they think that doing so will give them a utopian paradise where their personal morals and values rule over everything. The reality of course is that doing so will give them a dystopian hellhole where they are exploited constantly by the worst society has to offer, but because they think that reality is already here, they are willfully ignorant to just how much worse it could get for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)