Supreme Court curtails Clean Water Act

[BabyBoomer50s]

Supreme Court curtails Clean Water Act​

“The ruling was a setback for the Environmental Protection Agency and a victory for an Idaho couple, Michael and Chantell Sackett, who have been battling with the federal government for over 15 years in their efforts to build a house on an empty lot near a large lake.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/supreme-court-curtails-clean-water-act/

 

[phrodeau]

They should have called it the Holy Water Act, with six Catholics on the SCOTUS.

 

[Chobham]

Good decision.

 

[ll74]

Courts reducing the effectiveness of government regulation of businesses is not a good thing.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

Good decision.

The majority of lakes and rivers in the US are too polluted for swimming and fishing, but to you this is a "good decision."

You really are the worst excuse for a human being.

 

[HisArpy]

The majority of lakes and rivers in the US are too polluted for swimming and fishing, but to you this is a "good decision."

You really are the worst excuse for a human being.

The law is the law. If you don't like the law, change it.

Attempting to impose regulations and laws by administrative fiat is the worst sort of governance because no one knows what the law really is.

 

[ll74]

The law is the law. If you don't like the law, change it.

Attempting to impose regulations and laws by administrative fiat is the worst sort of governance because no one knows what the law really is.

Kinda like the trans and abortion laws being passed recently.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

It was a unanimous decision.

 

[Rightguide]

Supreme Court curtails Clean Water Act​

“The ruling was a setback for the Environmental Protection Agency and a victory for an Idaho couple, Michael and Chantell Sackett, who have been battling with the federal government for over 15 years in their efforts to build a house on an empty lot near a large lake.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/supreme-court-curtails-clean-water-act/

The case began up in Bonner County, Id many years ago. Glad to see it finally settled in the Sackett's favor. It was also a big slap down to the EPA. This case will impact the rule-making authority of all federal agencies, namely the ATF which also likes to exceed its congressionally mandated authority. So no more EPA regulation of farm ponds, and rain puddles, on private property.

"Alito pointed to the text of the CWA, emphasizing that the law’s use of the term “waters” generally refers to relatively permanent bodies of water such as lakes and rivers. But when the law is read as a whole, Alito continued, it is clear that some “adjacent” wetlands will also qualify as “waters of the United States.” This means, he wrote, that wetlands that are entirely separate from traditional bodies of water will not qualify. But the CWA will apply, Alito concluded, to wetlands that are “as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States” because they have a “continuous surface connection” with a larger body of water, “making it difficult to determine where the ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins.”
"Under that test, Alito explained, the lower court’s ruling must be reversed. “The wetlands on the Sacketts’ property,” he reasoned, “are distinguishable from any possibly covered waters.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/supreme-court-curtails-clean-water-act/

 

[Chobham]

The real reason gets lost in the minutiae of the technicalities. Both the law and the implementing regulation are vague and the plaintiffs were subject to severe financial penalties and prison time. Any law that has such penalties associated with it MUST be written with specificity such that the common man would understand where the line is drawn. In cases such as this the decision MUST always go to the plaintiff and it makes no difference what/who the regulating agency is.

 

[Rightguide]

More good news from the SCOTUS:

Supreme Court Delivers Victory For 94-Year-Old Homeowner, Ruling Against ‘Home Equity Theft’​

KATELYNN RICHARDSONCONTRIBUTOR
May 25, 202311:44 AM ET

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that a county’s decision to keep surplus profits after selling a 94-year-old woman’s home to cover a tax debt violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Geraldine Tyler owed a $15,000 tax debt on one-bedroom Minneapolis condo; to pay the debt, Hennepin County, Minnesota sold her home for $40,000—and kept the extra $25,000 beyond what was owed. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the opinion of the Court that the taxpayer must “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more,” effectively ending the practice of home equity theft.

“The County had the power to sell Tyler’s home to recover the unpaid property taxes,” he wrote. “But it could not use the toehold of the tax debt to confiscate more property than was due.”

More here: https://dailycaller.com/2023/05/25/supreme-court-home-equity-theft-tyler-hennepin-county/

One wonders how many past victims of this practice there are and if they can now sue those local governments who've done the same.

 

[adrina]

It was a unanimous decision.

No. It wasn't. It was 5-4.

 

[Rightguide]

No. It wasn't. It was 5-4.

The court ruled unanimously in favor of the Idaho couple, Michael and Chantell Sackett, that brought the case, but split 5-4 in its reasoning. Joining Alito's majority opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred in the judgment.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-epa-clean-water-act/

 

[adrina]

I was in error. I misunderstood.

 

[Rightguide]

I was in error. I misunderstood.

You weren't all wrong, they did split 5-4 on reasoning.

 

[icanhelp1]

You weren't all wrong, they did split 5-4 on reasoning.

Maybe someday we'll return to just 3 branches of government and reign in the EPA.

 

[Lazaran]

No. It wasn't. It was 5-4.

You weren’t wrong..

“By a 5-4 vote, the court said in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito that wetlands can only be regulated under the Clean Water Act if they have a “continuous surface connection” to larger, regulated bodies of water.”

Don’t let the RWCJ “members” gaslight you.

They know damn well what really happened.

JFC

SAD!!!

 

[Bray123]

So as long as the connection is by underground cave, it can be as polluted as Flint.

 

[Chobham]

You weren't all wrong, they did split 5-4 on reasoning.

The spit in the reasoning only illustrates the vagueness of the law. Back to post #10.

 

[Rightguide]

The spit in the reasoning only illustrates the vagueness of the law. Back to post #10.

Precisely.

 

[Rightguide]

Maybe someday we'll return to just 3 branches of government and reign in the EPA.

I think we're going to see the ATF get their asses handed to them as well with the upcoming "Chevron Deference Rule" they like to use in excusing their legislating beyond the intent of Congress habits. It looks like that rule will either be struck down or modified by the court to uphold the Article I powers of Congress.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

No puddle left unchurned...

 

[PaxNurgle]

Good decision.

Okay, so you think it was a "Good decision" huh?

Try this, then.

Pour yourself a glass of water. Then get an eye dropper, stick it in your gas tank, fill it up, then place four drops into your glass of water.
Then drink it.

You like the taste?

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANTED!! YOU JUST BASICALLY ADMITTED YOU LIKE THIS!

I mean, you literally can't be fucking serious.

If you aren't outraged by what a horrible, fucked up decision our rogue Supreme Court just handed down to our citizens, then you have no fucking right to call yourself an American. Seriously, you don't. Fuck off.

Maybe next time, just drink straight from the gas tank and poison yourself, rather than celebrate the government basically granting corporations the right to poison everyone else's water supply.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Okay, so you think it was a "Good decision" huh?

Try this, then.

Pour yourself a glass of water. Then get an eye dropper, stick it in your gas tank, fill it up, then place four drops into your glass of water.
Then drink it.

You like the taste?

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANTED!! YOU JUST BASICALLY ADMITTED YOU LIKE THIS!

I mean, you literally can't be fucking serious.

If you aren't outraged by what a horrible, fucked up decision our rogue Supreme Court just handed down to our citizens, then you have no fucking right to call yourself an American. Seriously, you don't. Fuck off.

Maybe next time, just drink straight from the gas tank and poison yourself, rather than celebrate the government basically granting corporations the right to poison everyone else's water supply.

It was a unanimous decision that essentially says environmental policy must be set by Congress, not bureaucrats. The onus is on elected representatives to specify what rules regulatory agencies should enforce.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Maybe so, but nobody should be celebrating when clean water standards are lifted. People should be alarmed. And yes, maybe Congress should be the ones setting the standards, but Rightguide and the Hisarpy/Chobham/etc guy seemed to be implying that allowing for dirty/poisoned water supplies is a good thing. Which goes back to my gasoline in drinking water analogy again. Surely, no reasonable person wants this??