The EPA just got bitch-slapped!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by eflatminor, Mar 21, 2012.

  1. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,236
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    I'm hearing the SC ruled unanimously (when does THAT happen?!) for the Idaho landowners and against the EPA, who were claiming a couple tried to build their home on wetlands...wetlands with no water.

    The question for the justices was whether the couple had the right to appear before a judge and contest the agency’s contention that their land contained wetlands subject to the Clean Water Act.

    The EPA argued that the agency’s compliance orders are not subject to judicial review. Wow, just wow. I'm flabbergasted that it got this far, but maybe I'm missing something. Anyone support the EPA's action in this case?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,518
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,930
    No link?
     
  3. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,236
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    I only heard it on the radio. Can't find a link yet. Anyone?
     
  4. Decepticon
    Offline

    Decepticon BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,138
    Thanks Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +189
    Hardly a bitchslap. They can go to court now is all.

    Here, even SCALIA sides with the ability of the EPA's compliance orders...

    Supreme Court allows Idaho couple to challenge EPA on wetlands ruling - The Washington Post

    The government has said the EPA’s power to issue compliance orders, with its threats of huge fines, is a way to quickly move to stop environmental damage. Allowing polluters to go to court would tie up the agency in litigation.

    The court’s opinion said that could still be the case. “Compliance orders will remain an effective means of security prompt voluntary complians in those many cases where there is no substantial basis to question their validity,” Scalia wrote


    Don't let objective reality prove you're biased or anything. Or is Scalia siding with the EPA a bitchslap to the EPA?
     
  5. tinydancer
    Offline

    tinydancer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    41,446
    Thanks Received:
    9,343
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Sundown
    Ratings:
    +20,950
    I hope this link works.

    News Headlines
     
  6. tinydancer
    Offline

    tinydancer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    41,446
    Thanks Received:
    9,343
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Sundown
    Ratings:
    +20,950
    This is great news. The EPA on this one case didn't just need to be bitch slapped, they needed the shit kicked out of them (figuratively speaking) for what they did to this couple.

    :eusa_clap::eusa_clap::eusa_clap:
     
  7. tinydancer
    Offline

    tinydancer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    41,446
    Thanks Received:
    9,343
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Sundown
    Ratings:
    +20,950
    Supreme Court Rules For Idaho Couple In EPA Battle - Yahoo! News

    The decision is a victory for property rights advocates. Attorneys for the Pacific Legal Foundation, who represented the Sacketts in court, issued a statement calling the decision a "precedent-setting victory for the rights of all property owners."

    "The United States Supreme Court today held that landowners have a right to direct, meaningful judicial review if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency effectively seizes control of their property by declaring it to be 'wetlands'," the group said.

    "The EPA used bullying and threats of terrifying fines, and has made our life hell for the past five years," Mike Sackett said in a statement. "It said we could not go to court and challenge their bogus claim that our small lot had 'wetlands' on it. As this nightmare went on, we rubbed our eyes and started to wonder if we were living in some totalitarian country. Now, the Supreme Court has come to our rescue, and reminded the EPA - and everyone - that this is still America, and Americans still have rights under the Constitution."
     
  8. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,236
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    The EPA didn't think they should be subject to judicial review. The SC unanimously disagreed. That's a bitch slap.

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

    Double bitch slap.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,692
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,758
    War is peace.
    Freedom is slavery.
    Ignorance is strength.
    Drylands are wetlands.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845


    Without property rights, a thing that all Liberals oppose, there are no rights.
     

Share This Page