Entire U.S. Supreme Court slaps down the EPA and it's misuse of environmental regulations...

[2aguy]

This just came up on one of my news sites.......

So...this is the entire U.S. Supreme Court, not just the normal ones........this includes the leftists as well...

The overall decision is 9-0. SCOTUS unanimously reined in the EPA. All justices. All nine of them, including the leftists.
-----------
The case centered on Michael and Chantell Sackett, two Idaho residents whom the EPA prohibited from building a home near a wetland years ago, citing the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972.



“The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day,” Alito’s majority opinion stated. “The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as ‘waters of the United States’ because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not ‘waters of the United States.'”

The ruling ultimately held that the federal government’s WOTUS definition must be restricted to a water source with a “continuous surface connection” to major bodies of water.

Schumer Slams ‘MAGA’ SCOTUS After 9-0 Vote That Reins in EPA

"This MAGA Supreme Court is continuing to erode our country’s environmental laws."

legalinsurrection.com

 

[Moonglow]

Ok, now they can build their home by the wetland and get mosquito bites.

 

[BS Filter]

Elena Kegan and Sotomayor are MAGA? Cool.

 

[skews13]

This just came up on one of my news sites.......

So...this is the entire U.S. Supreme Court, not just the normal ones........this includes the leftists as well...

The overall decision is 9-0. SCOTUS unanimously reined in the EPA. All justices. All nine of them, including the leftists.
-----------
The case centered on Michael and Chantell Sackett, two Idaho residents whom the EPA prohibited from building a home near a wetland years ago, citing the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972.



“The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day,” Alito’s majority opinion stated. “The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as ‘waters of the United States’ because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not ‘waters of the United States.'”

The ruling ultimately held that the federal government’s WOTUS definition must be restricted to a water source with a “continuous surface connection” to major bodies of water.

Schumer Slams ‘MAGA’ SCOTUS After 9-0 Vote That Reins in EPA

"This MAGA Supreme Court is continuing to erode our country’s environmental laws."

legalinsurrection.com

Your assertion is misleading.

A wetland, as it has always been defined by the EPA, The Clean Water Act, and by science, is the following:

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, including during the growing season. Water saturation (hydrology) largely determines how the soil develops and the types of plant and animal communities living in and on the soil. Wetlands may support both aquatic and terrestrial species. The prolonged presence of water creates conditions that favor the growth of specially adapted plants (hydrophytes) and promote the development of characteristic wetland (hydric) soils.

The Supreme Court did not look at the science, or the Clean Water Act itself, which has been in place for more than 50 years, but at corporate interests, when it ruled that, if a wetland is not directly connected to a waterway (lake, river, stream, etc), it is no longer a wetland, and is open for exploitation. What surprised me is that Kavanaugh voted with the Liberals on this issue, stating in his own opinion that the majority was ignoring precedent and jeopardizing water quality in the US. I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

At issue was the court severely limiting the ability of the government to enforce the Clean Water Act, with Kavanaugh agreeing with the ultimate decision, but siding with the liberal wing in pointing out that the court is making law instead of interpreting it.

"It is unusual for Kavanaugh to break with his conservative colleagues, and the fact that he did so here shows us how truly baseless the court’s reasoning is,"

The question before the court in this case was which wetlands are considered to be 'adjacent' to a body of water covered by the act, and therefore itself protected by the act,"

'the definitions of "adjacent" are notably explicit that two things need not touch each other in order to be adjacent,' "I would stick to the text.”

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Meh, Potato and his clowns got slapped around again

 

[BS Filter]

Your assertion is misleading.

A wetland, as it has always been defined by the EPA, The Clean Water Act, and by science, is the following:

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, including during the growing season. Water saturation (hydrology) largely determines how the soil develops and the types of plant and animal communities living in and on the soil. Wetlands may support both aquatic and terrestrial species. The prolonged presence of water creates conditions that favor the growth of specially adapted plants (hydrophytes) and promote the development of characteristic wetland (hydric) soils.

The Supreme Court did not look at the science, or the Clean Water Act itself, which has been in place for more than 50 years, but at corporate interests, when it ruled that, if a wetland is not directly connected to a waterway (lake, river, stream, etc), it is no longer a wetland, and is open for exploitation. What surprised me is that Kavanaugh voted with the Liberals on this issue, stating in his own opinion that the majority was ignoring precedent and jeopardizing water quality in the US. I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

At issue was the court severely limiting the ability of the government to enforce the Clean Water Act, with Kavanaugh agreeing with the ultimate decision, but siding with the liberal wing in pointing out that the court is making law instead of interpreting it.

"It is unusual for Kavanaugh to break with his conservative colleagues, and the fact that he did so here shows us how truly baseless the court’s reasoning is,"

The question before the court in this case was which wetlands are considered to be 'adjacent' to a body of water covered by the act, and therefore itself protected by the act,"

'the definitions of "adjacent" are notably explicit that two things need not touch each other in order to be adjacent,' "I would stick to the text.”

The court ruled with logic and common sense on the definition of "adjacent".

 

[Silent Warrior]

Your assertion is misleading.

A wetland, as it has always been defined by the EPA, The Clean Water Act, and by science, is the following:

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, including during the growing season. Water saturation (hydrology) largely determines how the soil develops and the types of plant and animal communities living in and on the soil. Wetlands may support both aquatic and terrestrial species. The prolonged presence of water creates conditions that favor the growth of specially adapted plants (hydrophytes) and promote the development of characteristic wetland (hydric) soils.

The Supreme Court did not look at the science, or the Clean Water Act itself, which has been in place for more than 50 years, but at corporate interests, when it ruled that, if a wetland is not directly connected to a waterway (lake, river, stream, etc), it is no longer a wetland, and is open for exploitation. What surprised me is that Kavanaugh voted with the Liberals on this issue, stating in his own opinion that the majority was ignoring precedent and jeopardizing water quality in the US. I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

At issue was the court severely limiting the ability of the government to enforce the Clean Water Act, with Kavanaugh agreeing with the ultimate decision, but siding with the liberal wing in pointing out that the court is making law instead of interpreting it.

"It is unusual for Kavanaugh to break with his conservative colleagues, and the fact that he did so here shows us how truly baseless the court’s reasoning is,"

The question before the court in this case was which wetlands are considered to be 'adjacent' to a body of water covered by the act, and therefore itself protected by the act,"

'the definitions of "adjacent" are notably explicit that two things need not touch each other in order to be adjacent,' "I would stick to the text.”

A dry ditch does not a wetland make.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Your assertion is misleading.

A wetland, as it has always been defined by the EPA, The Clean Water Act, and by science, is the following:

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, including during the growing season. Water saturation (hydrology) largely determines how the soil develops and the types of plant and animal communities living in and on the soil. Wetlands may support both aquatic and terrestrial species. The prolonged presence of water creates conditions that favor the growth of specially adapted plants (hydrophytes) and promote the development of characteristic wetland (hydric) soils.

The Supreme Court did not look at the science, or the Clean Water Act itself, which has been in place for more than 50 years, but at corporate interests, when it ruled that, if a wetland is not directly connected to a waterway (lake, river, stream, etc), it is no longer a wetland, and is open for exploitation. What surprised me is that Kavanaugh voted with the Liberals on this issue, stating in his own opinion that the majority was ignoring precedent and jeopardizing water quality in the US. I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

At issue was the court severely limiting the ability of the government to enforce the Clean Water Act, with Kavanaugh agreeing with the ultimate decision, but siding with the liberal wing in pointing out that the court is making law instead of interpreting it.

"It is unusual for Kavanaugh to break with his conservative colleagues, and the fact that he did so here shows us how truly baseless the court’s reasoning is,"

The question before the court in this case was which wetlands are considered to be 'adjacent' to a body of water covered by the act, and therefore itself protected by the act,"

'the definitions of "adjacent" are notably explicit that two things need not touch each other in order to be adjacent,' "I would stick to the text.”

The court looked at the Constitution. The EPA can't make up laws as it goes.

 

[Missourian]

Every mud puddle is not under the purview of the federal government via the The Waters of the United States Act.

If it's not directly connected to navigable waters, it's a state issue.