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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't cons take seriously their god-demanded duty of good stewardship of this earth?

They'd never treat their own house and backyard the way they think polluters have a right to treat our waterways and air. It's as though they can't envision how this pollution will affect them in any way.

Maybe, just maybe, people have a sincere belief that no matter how noble and just the goals of the EPA are, we cannot tolerate an administrative agency—in particular—that expansively interprets its own authority past the boundary of what the authority it has actually been given. Consent of the governed and all that comes with it….

I don’t want pollution of the environment. But that doesn’t justify a power grab by an administrative agency. Nor am I willing to look the other way because the practical effects of this ruling will be a (temporary?) increase in pollution. Call it fascism, authoritarianism, or power plays, but every tyrant has always believed in the justness of his cause. The only real protection for the people is to not go down that road in the first place.

Process and procedures matter in a democratic republic.

Agreed - but the over reach of SC justices who have life time positions and do not self regulate themselves terribly well (see other thread on SCJ) shows us that all three branches of government need more accountability ..

This ruling was unjust in terms of overarching consequences in response to a narrow case of over reach. Quite ironic and not in a good way.

But there is accountability for SCOTUS in this case! Congress can vote to give EPA clearly the authority congress believes EPA should have and POTUS can sign it into law.

Exactly how is the SC accountable for decisions that will result in far more lax oversight of our waterways?

It is not their role to write laws. It IS their role to decide if there has been overreach by govt. And, this is what was decided.

That is not what PP claimed - they claimed without evidence that the SC had been accountable in this decision.

That is not true at all. They are extremely unlikely to have to deal with the consequences of their judicial overreach in gutting the clean water act due to disagreement with one narrow case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't cons take seriously their god-demanded duty of good stewardship of this earth?

They'd never treat their own house and backyard the way they think polluters have a right to treat our waterways and air. It's as though they can't envision how this pollution will affect them in any way.

Maybe, just maybe, people have a sincere belief that no matter how noble and just the goals of the EPA are, we cannot tolerate an administrative agency—in particular—that expansively interprets its own authority past the boundary of what the authority it has actually been given. Consent of the governed and all that comes with it….

I don’t want pollution of the environment. But that doesn’t justify a power grab by an administrative agency. Nor am I willing to look the other way because the practical effects of this ruling will be a (temporary?) increase in pollution. Call it fascism, authoritarianism, or power plays, but every tyrant has always believed in the justness of his cause. The only real protection for the people is to not go down that road in the first place.

Process and procedures matter in a democratic republic.

+1000

[Anonymous]

SCOTUS does not have the authority legally or morally to make these rules. Time to ignore the court.

[Anonymous]

Uh, pls. read PP’s post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS does not have the authority legally or morally to make these rules. Time to ignore the court.

+1, the Court has made itself irrelevant. Time to ignore it.

They can make all the decisions they want. Let’s see them enforce them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't cons take seriously their god-demanded duty of good stewardship of this earth?

They'd never treat their own house and backyard the way they think polluters have a right to treat our waterways and air. It's as though they can't envision how this pollution will affect them in any way.

Maybe, just maybe, people have a sincere belief that no matter how noble and just the goals of the EPA are, we cannot tolerate an administrative agency—in particular—that expansively interprets its own authority past the boundary of what the authority it has actually been given. Consent of the governed and all that comes with it….

I don’t want pollution of the environment. But that doesn’t justify a power grab by an administrative agency. Nor am I willing to look the other way because the practical effects of this ruling will be a (temporary?) increase in pollution. Call it fascism, authoritarianism, or power plays, but every tyrant has always believed in the justness of his cause. The only real protection for the people is to not go down that road in the first place.

Process and procedures matter in a democratic republic.

+1000

Minus 1,000

Judicial over reach of an unelected, highly partisan Supreme Court is harming our democratic republic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't cons take seriously their god-demanded duty of good stewardship of this earth?

They'd never treat their own house and backyard the way they think polluters have a right to treat our waterways and air. It's as though they can't envision how this pollution will affect them in any way.

Maybe, just maybe, people have a sincere belief that no matter how noble and just the goals of the EPA are, we cannot tolerate an administrative agency—in particular—that expansively interprets its own authority past the boundary of what the authority it has actually been given. Consent of the governed and all that comes with it….

I don’t want pollution of the environment. But that doesn’t justify a power grab by an administrative agency. Nor am I willing to look the other way because the practical effects of this ruling will be a (temporary?) increase in pollution. Call it fascism, authoritarianism, or power plays, but every tyrant has always believed in the justness of his cause. The only real protection for the people is to not go down that road in the first place.

Process and procedures matter in a democratic republic.

+1000

Minus 1,000

Judicial over reach of an unelected, highly partisan Supreme Court is harming our democratic republic.

If only you felt that way about an unelected, partisan administrative state that actually undermines the constitutional order of checks and balances….

Again, 9 justices agreed the EPA went beyond its legal authority. This wasn’t a 5-4 decision. It was 9-0 on the judgment of the court, 5 in the majority and 4 concurring with the judgment. If you read the syllabus, you’ll kindly note that there were ZERO dissents filed in the case.

It’s incredible that in this highly partisan era the EPA just got hammered 9-0 on the substance of the issue and all the outrage here is at the justices when it should clearly be directed at the unelected EPA for abuse of it’s authority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't cons take seriously their god-demanded duty of good stewardship of this earth?

They'd never treat their own house and backyard the way they think polluters have a right to treat our waterways and air. It's as though they can't envision how this pollution will affect them in any way.

Maybe, just maybe, people have a sincere belief that no matter how noble and just the goals of the EPA are, we cannot tolerate an administrative agency—in particular—that expansively interprets its own authority past the boundary of what the authority it has actually been given. Consent of the governed and all that comes with it….

I don’t want pollution of the environment. But that doesn’t justify a power grab by an administrative agency. Nor am I willing to look the other way because the practical effects of this ruling will be a (temporary?) increase in pollution. Call it fascism, authoritarianism, or power plays, but every tyrant has always believed in the justness of his cause. The only real protection for the people is to not go down that road in the first place.

Process and procedures matter in a democratic republic.

Agreed - but the over reach of SC justices who have life time positions and do not self regulate themselves terribly well (see other thread on SCJ) shows us that all three branches of government need more accountability ..

This ruling was unjust in terms of overarching consequences in response to a narrow case of over reach. Quite ironic and not in a good way.

Taking control of land that has water not connected to the rivers and oceans is not a narrow overreach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't cons take seriously their god-demanded duty of good stewardship of this earth?

They'd never treat their own house and backyard the way they think polluters have a right to treat our waterways and air. It's as though they can't envision how this pollution will affect them in any way.

Maybe, just maybe, people have a sincere belief that no matter how noble and just the goals of the EPA are, we cannot tolerate an administrative agency—in particular—that expansively interprets its own authority past the boundary of what the authority it has actually been given. Consent of the governed and all that comes with it….

I don’t want pollution of the environment. But that doesn’t justify a power grab by an administrative agency. Nor am I willing to look the other way because the practical effects of this ruling will be a (temporary?) increase in pollution. Call it fascism, authoritarianism, or power plays, but every tyrant has always believed in the justness of his cause. The only real protection for the people is to not go down that road in the first place.

Process and procedures matter in a democratic republic.

Agreed - but the over reach of SC justices who have life time positions and do not self regulate themselves terribly well (see other thread on SCJ) shows us that all three branches of government need more accountability ..

This ruling was unjust in terms of overarching consequences in response to a narrow case of over reach. Quite ironic and not in a good way.

But there is accountability for SCOTUS in this case! Congress can vote to give EPA clearly the authority congress believes EPA should have and POTUS can sign it into law.

Exactly how is the SC accountable for decisions that will result in far more lax oversight of our waterways?

It is not their role to write laws. It IS their role to decide if there has been overreach by govt. And, this is what was decided.

That is not what PP claimed - they claimed without evidence that the SC had been accountable in this decision.

That is not true at all. They are extremely unlikely to have to deal with the consequences of their judicial overreach in gutting the clean water act due to disagreement with one narrow case.

Perhaps the EPA shouldn't have tried to regulate such a narrow area.
We should be asking what else the EPA is overreaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't cons take seriously their god-demanded duty of good stewardship of this earth?

They'd never treat their own house and backyard the way they think polluters have a right to treat our waterways and air. It's as though they can't envision how this pollution will affect them in any way.

Maybe, just maybe, people have a sincere belief that no matter how noble and just the goals of the EPA are, we cannot tolerate an administrative agency—in particular—that expansively interprets its own authority past the boundary of what the authority it has actually been given. Consent of the governed and all that comes with it….

I don’t want pollution of the environment. But that doesn’t justify a power grab by an administrative agency. Nor am I willing to look the other way because the practical effects of this ruling will be a (temporary?) increase in pollution. Call it fascism, authoritarianism, or power plays, but every tyrant has always believed in the justness of his cause. The only real protection for the people is to not go down that road in the first place.

Process and procedures matter in a democratic republic.

+1000

Minus 1,000

Judicial over reach of an unelected, highly partisan Supreme Court is harming our democratic republic.

If only you felt that way about an unelected, partisan administrative state that actually undermines the constitutional order of checks and balances….

Again, 9 justices agreed the EPA went beyond its legal authority. This wasn’t a 5-4 decision. It was 9-0 on the judgment of the court, 5 in the majority and 4 concurring with the judgment. If you read the syllabus, you’ll kindly note that there were ZERO dissents filed in the case.

It’s incredible that in this highly partisan era the EPA just got hammered 9-0 on the substance of the issue and all the outrage here is at the justices when it should clearly be directed at the unelected EPA for abuse of it’s authority.

They agreed EPA over reached in one narrow case: they did not agree that the CWA should be gutted.

SC is throwing the baby out with the bath water and at our critical point in history when scientists close to unanimously agree that climate change is reaching an irreversible tipping point. Wet lands are particularly vulnerable but essential parts of nature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't cons take seriously their god-demanded duty of good stewardship of this earth?

They'd never treat their own house and backyard the way they think polluters have a right to treat our waterways and air. It's as though they can't envision how this pollution will affect them in any way.

Maybe, just maybe, people have a sincere belief that no matter how noble and just the goals of the EPA are, we cannot tolerate an administrative agency—in particular—that expansively interprets its own authority past the boundary of what the authority it has actually been given. Consent of the governed and all that comes with it….

I don’t want pollution of the environment. But that doesn’t justify a power grab by an administrative agency. Nor am I willing to look the other way because the practical effects of this ruling will be a (temporary?) increase in pollution. Call it fascism, authoritarianism, or power plays, but every tyrant has always believed in the justness of his cause. The only real protection for the people is to not go down that road in the first place.

Process and procedures matter in a democratic republic.

Agreed - but the over reach of SC justices who have life time positions and do not self regulate themselves terribly well (see other thread on SCJ) shows us that all three branches of government need more accountability ..

This ruling was unjust in terms of overarching consequences in response to a narrow case of over reach. Quite ironic and not in a good way.

But there is accountability for SCOTUS in this case! Congress can vote to give EPA clearly the authority congress believes EPA should have and POTUS can sign it into law.

Exactly how is the SC accountable for decisions that will result in far more lax oversight of our waterways?

It is not their role to write laws. It IS their role to decide if there has been overreach by govt. And, this is what was decided.

That is not what PP claimed - they claimed without evidence that the SC had been accountable in this decision.

That is not true at all. They are extremely unlikely to have to deal with the consequences of their judicial overreach in gutting the clean water act due to disagreement with one narrow case.

Perhaps the EPA shouldn't have tried to regulate such a narrow area.
We should be asking what else the EPA is overreaching.

No we should be asking what we should be doing to prevent/ mitigate our collective existential demise due to climate change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't cons take seriously their god-demanded duty of good stewardship of this earth?

They'd never treat their own house and backyard the way they think polluters have a right to treat our waterways and air. It's as though they can't envision how this pollution will affect them in any way.

Maybe, just maybe, people have a sincere belief that no matter how noble and just the goals of the EPA are, we cannot tolerate an administrative agency—in particular—that expansively interprets its own authority past the boundary of what the authority it has actually been given. Consent of the governed and all that comes with it….

I don’t want pollution of the environment. But that doesn’t justify a power grab by an administrative agency. Nor am I willing to look the other way because the practical effects of this ruling will be a (temporary?) increase in pollution. Call it fascism, authoritarianism, or power plays, but every tyrant has always believed in the justness of his cause. The only real protection for the people is to not go down that road in the first place.

Process and procedures matter in a democratic republic.

Ok well enjoy your pollution!

I bet you’re also someone who thinks of slaughtered children as simply collateral damage sacrificed for the sake of the second amendment. You know, the sortnof person who shrugs and says nothing we can do about (insert horrible situation here).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't cons take seriously their god-demanded duty of good stewardship of this earth?

They'd never treat their own house and backyard the way they think polluters have a right to treat our waterways and air. It's as though they can't envision how this pollution will affect them in any way.

Maybe, just maybe, people have a sincere belief that no matter how noble and just the goals of the EPA are, we cannot tolerate an administrative agency—in particular—that expansively interprets its own authority past the boundary of what the authority it has actually been given. Consent of the governed and all that comes with it….

I don’t want pollution of the environment. But that doesn’t justify a power grab by an administrative agency. Nor am I willing to look the other way because the practical effects of this ruling will be a (temporary?) increase in pollution. Call it fascism, authoritarianism, or power plays, but every tyrant has always believed in the justness of his cause. The only real protection for the people is to not go down that road in the first place.

Process and procedures matter in a democratic republic.

+1000

Minus 1,000

Judicial over reach of an unelected, highly partisan Supreme Court is harming our democratic republic.

If only you felt that way about an unelected, partisan administrative state that actually undermines the constitutional order of checks and balances….

Again, 9 justices agreed the EPA went beyond its legal authority. This wasn’t a 5-4 decision. It was 9-0 on the judgment of the court, 5 in the majority and 4 concurring with the judgment. If you read the syllabus, you’ll kindly note that there were ZERO dissents filed in the case.

It’s incredible that in this highly partisan era the EPA just got hammered 9-0 on the substance of the issue and all the outrage here is at the justices when it should clearly be directed at the unelected EPA for abuse of it’s authority.

They agreed EPA over reached in one narrow case: they did not agree that the CWA should be gutted.

SC is throwing the baby out with the bath water and at our critical point in history when scientists close to unanimously agree that climate change is reaching an irreversible tipping point. Wet lands are particularly vulnerable but essential parts of nature.

They have been paid and they delivered. SCOTUS is for sell and the highest bidder always wins. It has nothing to do with the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't cons take seriously their god-demanded duty of good stewardship of this earth?

They'd never treat their own house and backyard the way they think polluters have a right to treat our waterways and air. It's as though they can't envision how this pollution will affect them in any way.

Maybe, just maybe, people have a sincere belief that no matter how noble and just the goals of the EPA are, we cannot tolerate an administrative agency—in particular—that expansively interprets its own authority past the boundary of what the authority it has actually been given. Consent of the governed and all that comes with it….

I don’t want pollution of the environment. But that doesn’t justify a power grab by an administrative agency. Nor am I willing to look the other way because the practical effects of this ruling will be a (temporary?) increase in pollution. Call it fascism, authoritarianism, or power plays, but every tyrant has always believed in the justness of his cause. The only real protection for the people is to not go down that road in the first place.

Process and procedures matter in a democratic republic.

+1000

Minus 1,000

Judicial over reach of an unelected, highly partisan Supreme Court is harming our democratic republic.

If only you felt that way about an unelected, partisan administrative state that actually undermines the constitutional order of checks and balances….

Again, 9 justices agreed the EPA went beyond its legal authority. This wasn’t a 5-4 decision. It was 9-0 on the judgment of the court, 5 in the majority and 4 concurring with the judgment. If you read the syllabus, you’ll kindly note that there were ZERO dissents filed in the case.

It’s incredible that in this highly partisan era the EPA just got hammered 9-0 on the substance of the issue and all the outrage here is at the justices when it should clearly be directed at the unelected EPA for abuse of it’s authority.

You are incredibly well-spoken, but unfortunately, are speaking to a highly partisan group here on this highly partisan forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't cons take seriously their god-demanded duty of good stewardship of this earth?

They'd never treat their own house and backyard the way they think polluters have a right to treat our waterways and air. It's as though they can't envision how this pollution will affect them in any way.

Maybe, just maybe, people have a sincere belief that no matter how noble and just the goals of the EPA are, we cannot tolerate an administrative agency—in particular—that expansively interprets its own authority past the boundary of what the authority it has actually been given. Consent of the governed and all that comes with it….

I don’t want pollution of the environment. But that doesn’t justify a power grab by an administrative agency. Nor am I willing to look the other way because the practical effects of this ruling will be a (temporary?) increase in pollution. Call it fascism, authoritarianism, or power plays, but every tyrant has always believed in the justness of his cause. The only real protection for the people is to not go down that road in the first place.

Process and procedures matter in a democratic republic.

+1000

Minus 1,000

Judicial over reach of an unelected, highly partisan Supreme Court is harming our democratic republic.

If only you felt that way about an unelected, partisan administrative state that actually undermines the constitutional order of checks and balances….

Again, 9 justices agreed the EPA went beyond its legal authority. This wasn’t a 5-4 decision. It was 9-0 on the judgment of the court, 5 in the majority and 4 concurring with the judgment. If you read the syllabus, you’ll kindly note that there were ZERO dissents filed in the case.

It’s incredible that in this highly partisan era the EPA just got hammered 9-0 on the substance of the issue and all the outrage here is at the justices when it should clearly be directed at the unelected EPA for abuse of it’s authority.

You are incredibly well-spoken, but unfortunately, are speaking to a highly partisan group here on this highly partisan forum.

Enjoy your pollution! Yay to undrinkable water and decimated wetlands! Who cares about harming biodiversity, anyway. I’ll be gone when that all starts impacting enough for people to feel. Not my problem, so cheers!