Thanks SC - we can look forward to the Potomac River Turing orange again now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
One can be incredibly well-spoken and also wrong. And PP is both.

Here's an article that breaks down this case pretty well - albeit from liberal outlet Slate. The Court went beyond the case in front of them to completely redefine the meaning of the clause at issue in the Clean Water Act. Even Kavanaugh objected.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/samuel-alito-wetlands-opinion-lost-brett-kavanaugh.html

This writer is not being honest. He says Congress added 'adjacent' to codify the EPA's definition of bordering, contiguous or neighboring. I don't understand the difference between the first two, but neighboring is not part of the definition of adjacent.
The EPA could have stuck to its older usage, but they wanted more control, and argued against letting a family work on their land, because it was in the general neighborhood of some other wetlands.

As I see it, Alito and the conservative justices are deliberately and willfully misrepresenting the law and are deliberately going against the clear language set forth by Congress. Contiguous is NOT the same as adjacent and neighboring. Contiguous means physically touching, whereas adjacent and neighboring mean nearby but not necessarily touching. The language in CWA *is* broader than what these Justices are claiming.

I think EPA should continue to follow the law as written by Congress, not as distorted and misrepresented by SCOTUS.

The EPA defined nearby, as being tens of miles. The definition they want is something having a nexus to a wetland or waterway. They are essentially claiming authority over all water, regardless of whether it is connected to a lake or river.

All ground water is in a watershed. Some flows immediately into streams and some makes its way there gradually. The places where the water doesn’t flow are essential parts of the watershed. They hold back stormwater and they filter polluted water. There is a whole field of stream restoration devoted to restoring pools and bogs where dumbasses have drained and ditched wetlands and increased flooding and pollution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
One can be incredibly well-spoken and also wrong. And PP is both.

Here's an article that breaks down this case pretty well - albeit from liberal outlet Slate. The Court went beyond the case in front of them to completely redefine the meaning of the clause at issue in the Clean Water Act. Even Kavanaugh objected.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/samuel-alito-wetlands-opinion-lost-brett-kavanaugh.html

This writer is not being honest. He says Congress added 'adjacent' to codify the EPA's definition of bordering, contiguous or neighboring. I don't understand the difference between the first two, but neighboring is not part of the definition of adjacent.
The EPA could have stuck to its older usage, but they wanted more control, and argued against letting a family work on their land, because it was in the general neighborhood of some other wetlands.

As I see it, Alito and the conservative justices are deliberately and willfully misrepresenting the law and are deliberately going against the clear language set forth by Congress. Contiguous is NOT the same as adjacent and neighboring. Contiguous means physically touching, whereas adjacent and neighboring mean nearby but not necessarily touching. The language in CWA *is* broader than what these Justices are claiming.

I think EPA should continue to follow the law as written by Congress, not as distorted and misrepresented by SCOTUS.

The EPA defined nearby, as being tens of miles. The definition they want is something having a nexus to a wetland or waterway. They are essentially claiming authority over all water, regardless of whether it is connected to a lake or river.

I think you are grossly exaggerating and misrepresenting. For one, there are hardly even any places in the US where there are isolated wetlands completely separated from the nearest water body by tens of miles to begin with.

[Anonymous]

I am thrilled that the power grab by the EPA was ceremoniously shut down.
They have wielded their power in atrocious ways in the recent past.
They needed a reality check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
One can be incredibly well-spoken and also wrong. And PP is both.

Here's an article that breaks down this case pretty well - albeit from liberal outlet Slate. The Court went beyond the case in front of them to completely redefine the meaning of the clause at issue in the Clean Water Act. Even Kavanaugh objected.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/samuel-alito-wetlands-opinion-lost-brett-kavanaugh.html

This writer is not being honest. He says Congress added 'adjacent' to codify the EPA's definition of bordering, contiguous or neighboring. I don't understand the difference between the first two, but neighboring is not part of the definition of adjacent.
The EPA could have stuck to its older usage, but they wanted more control, and argued against letting a family work on their land, because it was in the general neighborhood of some other wetlands.

As I see it, Alito and the conservative justices are deliberately and willfully misrepresenting the law and are deliberately going against the clear language set forth by Congress. Contiguous is NOT the same as adjacent and neighboring. Contiguous means physically touching, whereas adjacent and neighboring mean nearby but not necessarily touching. The language in CWA *is* broader than what these Justices are claiming.

I think EPA should continue to follow the law as written by Congress, not as distorted and misrepresented by SCOTUS.

The EPA defined nearby, as being tens of miles. The definition they want is something having a nexus to a wetland or waterway. They are essentially claiming authority over all water, regardless of whether it is connected to a lake or river.

All ground water is in a watershed. Some flows immediately into streams and some makes its way there gradually. The places where the water doesn’t flow are essential parts of the watershed. They hold back stormwater and they filter polluted water. There is a whole field of stream restoration devoted to restoring pools and bogs where dumbasses have drained and ditched wetlands and increased flooding and pollution.

+1000 Groundwater aquifer recharge, which is hugely helped by wetlands, is immensely important. Ask any farmer how important that groundwater is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am thrilled that the power grab by the EPA was ceremoniously shut down.
They have wielded their power in atrocious ways in the recent past.
They needed a reality check.

You are completely wrong and you are the one who needs a reality check. People like you and the pundits you listen to would just as soon sell America's environment out for a fast buck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am thrilled that the power grab by the EPA was ceremoniously shut down.
They have wielded their power in atrocious ways in the recent past.
They needed a reality check.

You are completely wrong and you are the one who needs a reality check. People like you and the pundits you listen to would just as soon sell America's environment out for a fast buck.

SCOTUS decided UNANIMOUSLY that the EPA was wrong in what they did to the Sacketts.
Overreach, plain and simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
One can be incredibly well-spoken and also wrong. And PP is both.

Here's an article that breaks down this case pretty well - albeit from liberal outlet Slate. The Court went beyond the case in front of them to completely redefine the meaning of the clause at issue in the Clean Water Act. Even Kavanaugh objected.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/samuel-alito-wetlands-opinion-lost-brett-kavanaugh.html

This writer is not being honest. He says Congress added 'adjacent' to codify the EPA's definition of bordering, contiguous or neighboring. I don't understand the difference between the first two, but neighboring is not part of the definition of adjacent.
The EPA could have stuck to its older usage, but they wanted more control, and argued against letting a family work on their land, because it was in the general neighborhood of some other wetlands.

As I see it, Alito and the conservative justices are deliberately and willfully misrepresenting the law and are deliberately going against the clear language set forth by Congress. Contiguous is NOT the same as adjacent and neighboring. Contiguous means physically touching, whereas adjacent and neighboring mean nearby but not necessarily touching. The language in CWA *is* broader than what these Justices are claiming.

I think EPA should continue to follow the law as written by Congress, not as distorted and misrepresented by SCOTUS.

The EPA defined nearby, as being tens of miles. The definition they want is something having a nexus to a wetland or waterway. They are essentially claiming authority over all water, regardless of whether it is connected to a lake or river.

I think you are grossly exaggerating and misrepresenting. For one, there are hardly even any places in the US where there are isolated wetlands completely separated from the nearest water body by tens of miles to begin with.

Then perhaps the EPA shouldn't have gone after these places.
It is not a matter of being near any body of water, but a navigable body of water, that connects to the rest of the US. The government is using commerce clause power to regulate. In this case, the EPA is arguing that this land is in the neighborhood of wetlands that are adjoining to a creek that does not connect to anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am thrilled that the power grab by the EPA was ceremoniously shut down.
They have wielded their power in atrocious ways in the recent past.
They needed a reality check.

You are completely wrong and you are the one who needs a reality check. People like you and the pundits you listen to would just as soon sell America's environment out for a fast buck.

SCOTUS decided UNANIMOUSLY that the EPA was wrong in what they did to the Sacketts.
Overreach, plain and simple.

They agreed the EPA was wrong on Sackett. But they DISAGREED on what the scope of the Clean Water Act is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
One can be incredibly well-spoken and also wrong. And PP is both.

Here's an article that breaks down this case pretty well - albeit from liberal outlet Slate. The Court went beyond the case in front of them to completely redefine the meaning of the clause at issue in the Clean Water Act. Even Kavanaugh objected.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/samuel-alito-wetlands-opinion-lost-brett-kavanaugh.html

This writer is not being honest. He says Congress added 'adjacent' to codify the EPA's definition of bordering, contiguous or neighboring. I don't understand the difference between the first two, but neighboring is not part of the definition of adjacent.
The EPA could have stuck to its older usage, but they wanted more control, and argued against letting a family work on their land, because it was in the general neighborhood of some other wetlands.

As I see it, Alito and the conservative justices are deliberately and willfully misrepresenting the law and are deliberately going against the clear language set forth by Congress. Contiguous is NOT the same as adjacent and neighboring. Contiguous means physically touching, whereas adjacent and neighboring mean nearby but not necessarily touching. The language in CWA *is* broader than what these Justices are claiming.

I think EPA should continue to follow the law as written by Congress, not as distorted and misrepresented by SCOTUS.

The EPA defined nearby, as being tens of miles. The definition they want is something having a nexus to a wetland or waterway. They are essentially claiming authority over all water, regardless of whether it is connected to a lake or river.

I think you are grossly exaggerating and misrepresenting. For one, there are hardly even any places in the US where there are isolated wetlands completely separated from the nearest water body by tens of miles to begin with.

Then perhaps the EPA shouldn't have gone after these places.
It is not a matter of being near any body of water, but a navigable body of water, that connects to the rest of the US. The government is using commerce clause power to regulate. In this case, the EPA is arguing that this land is in the neighborhood of wetlands that are adjoining to a creek that does not connect to anything else.

Got news for you: A lot of the soil and geological strata in the US is not impermeable and water doesn't only flow on the surface. In many cases it's connected underground as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the anti-environmentalists here: if in say 10 years it’s clear this ruling has led to further destruction of fragile ecosystems and more polluted waterways, etc, will you shrug your shoulders and say oh well, too bad, not my problem? Truly curious if you just don’t care about nature or you think that more pollution is ok to accept in order to ward off what you perceive as over regulation.

I would expect the legislative and executive branches to fix the problem in a constitutionally permissible way. Failing that, I’ll vote for the people that would fix the problem. And the states have nearly unlimited authority to protect the environment within their jurisdictions.

Are you going to work for that to happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am thrilled that the power grab by the EPA was ceremoniously shut down.
They have wielded their power in atrocious ways in the recent past.
They needed a reality check.

You are completely wrong and you are the one who needs a reality check. People like you and the pundits you listen to would just as soon sell America's environment out for a fast buck.

SCOTUS decided UNANIMOUSLY that the EPA was wrong in what they did to the Sacketts.
Overreach, plain and simple.

None narrow case.

They were split on gutting the CWA.

They are on the wrong side of history yet again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
One can be incredibly well-spoken and also wrong. And PP is both.

Here's an article that breaks down this case pretty well - albeit from liberal outlet Slate. The Court went beyond the case in front of them to completely redefine the meaning of the clause at issue in the Clean Water Act. Even Kavanaugh objected.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/samuel-alito-wetlands-opinion-lost-brett-kavanaugh.html

This writer is not being honest. He says Congress added 'adjacent' to codify the EPA's definition of bordering, contiguous or neighboring. I don't understand the difference between the first two, but neighboring is not part of the definition of adjacent.
The EPA could have stuck to its older usage, but they wanted more control, and argued against letting a family work on their land, because it was in the general neighborhood of some other wetlands.

As I see it, Alito and the conservative justices are deliberately and willfully misrepresenting the law and are deliberately going against the clear language set forth by Congress. Contiguous is NOT the same as adjacent and neighboring. Contiguous means physically touching, whereas adjacent and neighboring mean nearby but not necessarily touching. The language in CWA *is* broader than what these Justices are claiming.

I think EPA should continue to follow the law as written by Congress, not as distorted and misrepresented by SCOTUS.

The EPA defined nearby, as being tens of miles. The definition they want is something having a nexus to a wetland or waterway. They are essentially claiming authority over all water, regardless of whether it is connected to a lake or river.

All ground water is in a watershed. Some flows immediately into streams and some makes its way there gradually. The places where the water doesn’t flow are essential parts of the watershed. They hold back stormwater and they filter polluted water. There is a whole field of stream restoration devoted to restoring pools and bogs where dumbasses have drained and ditched wetlands and increased flooding and pollution.

Plus one

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I remember when you couldn't see any fish whatsoever.

SC is acting like they are owned by corporations.

SCOTUS has been owned by corporations for decades. It’s just more blatant and obvious now. SCOTUS is now just not trying to hide it any more. SCOTUS ain’t shit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am thrilled that the power grab by the EPA was ceremoniously shut down.
They have wielded their power in atrocious ways in the recent past.
They needed a reality check.

You are completely wrong and you are the one who needs a reality check. People like you and the pundits you listen to would just as soon sell America's environment out for a fast buck.

SCOTUS decided UNANIMOUSLY that the EPA was wrong in what they did to the Sacketts.
Overreach, plain and simple.

Obviously the hack SCOTUS did not understand the science or the law. Apparently they made the rules after praying on it, checking their vacation schedules but before the pray circle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
One can be incredibly well-spoken and also wrong. And PP is both.

Here's an article that breaks down this case pretty well - albeit from liberal outlet Slate. The Court went beyond the case in front of them to completely redefine the meaning of the clause at issue in the Clean Water Act. Even Kavanaugh objected.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/samuel-alito-wetlands-opinion-lost-brett-kavanaugh.html

This writer is not being honest. He says Congress added 'adjacent' to codify the EPA's definition of bordering, contiguous or neighboring. I don't understand the difference between the first two, but neighboring is not part of the definition of adjacent.
The EPA could have stuck to its older usage, but they wanted more control, and argued against letting a family work on their land, because it was in the general neighborhood of some other wetlands.

As I see it, Alito and the conservative justices are deliberately and willfully misrepresenting the law and are deliberately going against the clear language set forth by Congress. Contiguous is NOT the same as adjacent and neighboring. Contiguous means physically touching, whereas adjacent and neighboring mean nearby but not necessarily touching. The language in CWA *is* broader than what these Justices are claiming.

I think EPA should continue to follow the law as written by Congress, not as distorted and misrepresented by SCOTUS.

The EPA defined nearby, as being tens of miles. The definition they want is something having a nexus to a wetland or waterway. They are essentially claiming authority over all water, regardless of whether it is connected to a lake or river.

I think you are grossly exaggerating and misrepresenting. For one, there are hardly even any places in the US where there are isolated wetlands completely separated from the nearest water body by tens of miles to begin with.

Then perhaps the EPA shouldn't have gone after these places.
It is not a matter of being near any body of water, but a navigable body of water, that connects to the rest of the US. The government is using commerce clause power to regulate. In this case, the EPA is arguing that this land is in the neighborhood of wetlands that are adjoining to a creek that does not connect to anything else.

Got news for you: A lot of the soil and geological strata in the US is not impermeable and water doesn't only flow on the surface. In many cases it's connected underground as well.

You with your big city learning and talk of aquifers. The devil’s talk.