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 agencys contention that their land contained wetlands subject to the Clean Water Act. The EPA argued that the agencys 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?