The EPA just got bitch-slapped!

[eflatminor]

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?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

No link?

 

[eflatminor]

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?

No link?

I only heard it on the radio. Can't find a link yet. Anyone?

 

[Decepticon]

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?

 

[tinydancer]

I hope this link works.

News Headlines

 

[tinydancer]

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?

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.

 

[tinydancer]

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."

 

[eflatminor]

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.

 

[daveman]

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Drylands are wetlands.

 

[code1211]

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."

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

 

[bripat9643]

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?

The EPA is a fascists operation. I'm sure they all give each other the roman salute.

 

[Conservative]

Supreme Court Sides With Idaho Property Owners Over EPA | Fox News

They've been fighting for the right to challenge the decision in court for several years, and facing millions of dollars in fines over the land.

The couple complained there was no reasonable way to challenge the order, and noted they don't know why the EPA concluded there are wetlands on their lot, which is surrounded by a residential neighborhood with sewer lines and homes.

How, exactly, did the EPA determine THEIR lot was 'wetlands', when the lot was surrounded by residential neighborhood, sewer lines, etc?

WTF?

 

[code1211]

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.

Sadly this would demand that our do-nothing, know nothing, believe nothing, lying, cheating, conniving, bought and paid for representatives actually do something other than bribe, take bribes, bend laws, cater favors and sell themselves and our country.

That's a pretty big demand of folks who don't even remember where their state is.

 

[daveman]

Supreme Court Sides With Idaho Property Owners Over EPA | Fox News

They've been fighting for the right to challenge the decision in court for several years, and facing millions of dollars in fines over the land.

The couple complained there was no reasonable way to challenge the order, and noted they don't know why the EPA concluded there are wetlands on their lot, which is surrounded by a residential neighborhood with sewer lines and homes.

How, exactly, did the EPA determine THEIR lot was 'wetlands', when the lot was surrounded by residential neighborhood, sewer lines, etc?

WTF?

The Sacketts disagreed with the “wetlands” designation, noting that a road ran between their property and Priest Lake and that their lot was in a residentially zoned subdivision containing other homes.​

Supreme Court to hear case of dream home quashed by EPA - CSMonitor.com

 

[bripat9643]

How, exactly, did the EPA determine THEIR lot was 'wetlands', when the lot was surrounded by residential neighborhood, sewer lines, etc?

WTF?

Simple: they pissed off some EPA bureaucrat who decided to make their life a living hell. That's how the EPA determined that.

Th EPA is a fascist organization. After the IRS, it's the closest thing we have to the Gestapo.

 

[KissMy]

The EPA fines will bankrupt this guy who's business employs 40 people.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe8TBXgwpnw"]Couple fights the EPA's $40+ Million Fines[/ame]