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.

+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.

+1

[Anonymous]

The right complains about an "activist" court, but this court is superseding the constitutionally granted authority of the Congress AND the Executive branches.

Truly a court gone amok.

[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.

The "administrative state" is part of the Executive branch AS AUTHORIZED BY THE CONGRESS.

Get of of it, this is judicial overreach that undermines the very tenets of our country.
+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]

I care about the health of our citizens and natural environment more than any convoluted political dogma. This is the real world where people are suffering and dying from preventable cancer caused by greedy business people who only believe in profit. You legal purists might feel satisfaction in your navel gazing thought experiments but the people you just sided with don’t give a damn about legal purity. They just used you to make a profit and escape any accountability for the death and damage that they cause against innocents. Thanks a whole lot. But at we made some sort of empty statement about “the administrative state”….

SMH

[Anonymous]

This illegitimate, idiotic and ideological Supreme Court has gone against science. Science has repeatedly established that wetlands play an important role in protecting and improving water quality.

[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.

+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.

+1

Hello pot - meet kettle.

The eloquent and legally precise PP also stated she or he wants to reverse Chevron next … clearly a highly partisan agenda.

The irony is rich.

Also the ruling itself was highly ironic - claiming executive branch over reach while imposing judicial overreach to prevent protection of millions of acres of wet lands that are essential parts of our natural environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I care about the health of our citizens and natural environment more than any convoluted political dogma. This is the real world where people are suffering and dying from preventable cancer caused by greedy business people who only believe in profit. You legal purists might feel satisfaction in your navel gazing thought experiments but the people you just sided with don’t give a damn about legal purity. They just used you to make a profit and escape any accountability for the death and damage that they cause against innocents. Thanks a whole lot. But at we made some sort of empty statement about “the administrative state”….

SMH

Then use your constitutionally-protected political rights to build the coalition you want to bring about the change you want.

I’m truly flabbergasted that your fellow citizens just went through a nearly 16-year ordeal to build a house on their land facing fines of $40,000 per day from the federal government. The outrageous behavior of the EPA was so flagrant that all 9 nine justices said the EPA went too far and the hand wringing is about how out of control the court is.

I’m glad that you care about your fellow citizens health and about the environment. I share your concerns. But why don’t you redirect your anger and energy at building the political coalition you need to bring about the change you want?

If your answer is really that the government should be able to do what it believes is best to advance the common good regardless of whether the people have given it the authority to do so or not, then you better be prepared to live by those ground rules under a President DeSantis (or worse).

But my guess is that the moment government is under the control of your political opponents you’ll rediscover your affinity for a constitutional system of checks and balances along with small “l” liberalism.

A multicultural democracy cannot survive without strong procedural guardrails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I care about the health of our citizens and natural environment more than any convoluted political dogma. This is the real world where people are suffering and dying from preventable cancer caused by greedy business people who only believe in profit. You legal purists might feel satisfaction in your navel gazing thought experiments but the people you just sided with don’t give a damn about legal purity. They just used you to make a profit and escape any accountability for the death and damage that they cause against innocents. Thanks a whole lot. But at we made some sort of empty statement about “the administrative state”….

SMH

Then use your constitutionally-protected political rights to build the coalition you want to bring about the change you want.

I’m truly flabbergasted that your fellow citizens just went through a nearly 16-year ordeal to build a house on their land facing fines of $40,000 per day from the federal government. The outrageous behavior of the EPA was so flagrant that all 9 nine justices said the EPA went too far and the hand wringing is about how out of control the court is.

I’m glad that you care about your fellow citizens health and about the environment. I share your concerns. But why don’t you redirect your anger and energy at building the political coalition you need to bring about the change you want?

If your answer is really that the government should be able to do what it believes is best to advance the common good regardless of whether the people have given it the authority to do so or not, then you better be prepared to live by those ground rules under a President DeSantis (or worse).

But my guess is that the moment government is under the control of your political opponents you’ll rediscover your affinity for a constitutional system of checks and balances along with small “l” liberalism.

A multicultural democracy cannot survive without strong procedural guardrails.

Well said and completely agree. And I am a liberal Democrat who supports protecting the environment. But as I have grown older, I have also come to believe that that in matters of governance, the end does NOT justify the means. Without the guardrails of rules and norms, there will be no liberal democracy to protect.

In this case, anyone with a smidgen of objectivity would agree that the EPA vastly exceeded its mandate, as all SC judges (including those on the left) did. Maybe as a nation, we want EPA to have that mandate. But then that has to come from a process of lawmaking, not the creative interpretation of its own authority by an agency. Adherence to rules and norms protects all of us against different types of tyranny, which can come from either end of the political spectrum depending on who is in power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I care about the health of our citizens and natural environment more than any convoluted political dogma. This is the real world where people are suffering and dying from preventable cancer caused by greedy business people who only believe in profit. You legal purists might feel satisfaction in your navel gazing thought experiments but the people you just sided with don’t give a damn about legal purity. They just used you to make a profit and escape any accountability for the death and damage that they cause against innocents. Thanks a whole lot. But at we made some sort of empty statement about “the administrative state”….

SMH

Then use your constitutionally-protected political rights to build the coalition you want to bring about the change you want.

I’m truly flabbergasted that your fellow citizens just went through a nearly 16-year ordeal to build a house on their land facing fines of $40,000 per day from the federal government. The outrageous behavior of the EPA was so flagrant that all 9 nine justices said the EPA went too far and the hand wringing is about how out of control the court is.

I’m glad that you care about your fellow citizens health and about the environment. I share your concerns. But why don’t you redirect your anger and energy at building the political coalition you need to bring about the change you want?

If your answer is really that the government should be able to do what it believes is best to advance the common good regardless of whether the people have given it the authority to do so or not, then you better be prepared to live by those ground rules under a President DeSantis (or worse).

But my guess is that the moment government is under the control of your political opponents you’ll rediscover your affinity for a constitutional system of checks and balances along with small “l” liberalism.

A multicultural democracy cannot survive without strong procedural guardrails.

Well said and completely agree. And I am a liberal Democrat who supports protecting the environment. But as I have grown older, I have also come to believe that that in matters of governance, the end does NOT justify the means. Without the guardrails of rules and norms, there will be no liberal democracy to protect.

In this case, anyone with a smidgen of objectivity would agree that the EPA vastly exceeded its mandate, as all SC judges (including those on the left) did. Maybe as a nation, we want EPA to have that mandate. But then that has to come from a process of lawmaking, not the creative interpretation of its own authority by an agency. Adherence to rules and norms protects all of us against different types of tyranny, which can come from either end of the political spectrum depending on who is in power.

That all sounds like a nice goal but once again these natural ecosystems will not continue to exist if we keep quibbling about our legal system. The laws have been corrupted and ignored by wealthy industrial capitalists for the entire existence of our legal system. The EPA was created legally and is good enough for me. I measure justice by what the real world results are and not some fantasy of one day achieving a perfect dogma.

You act like I don’t stand for rules and principles. That isn’t the case. The rule and norm that I stand for is one where our shared natural resources are not destroyed by private interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I care about the health of our citizens and natural environment more than any convoluted political dogma. This is the real world where people are suffering and dying from preventable cancer caused by greedy business people who only believe in profit. You legal purists might feel satisfaction in your navel gazing thought experiments but the people you just sided with don’t give a damn about legal purity. They just used you to make a profit and escape any accountability for the death and damage that they cause against innocents. Thanks a whole lot. But at we made some sort of empty statement about “the administrative state”….

SMH

Then use your constitutionally-protected political rights to build the coalition you want to bring about the change you want.

I’m truly flabbergasted that your fellow citizens just went through a nearly 16-year ordeal to build a house on their land facing fines of $40,000 per day from the federal government. The outrageous behavior of the EPA was so flagrant that all 9 nine justices said the EPA went too far and the hand wringing is about how out of control the court is.

I’m glad that you care about your fellow citizens health and about the environment. I share your concerns. But why don’t you redirect your anger and energy at building the political coalition you need to bring about the change you want?

If your answer is really that the government should be able to do what it believes is best to advance the common good regardless of whether the people have given it the authority to do so or not, then you better be prepared to live by those ground rules under a President DeSantis (or worse).

But my guess is that the moment government is under the control of your political opponents you’ll rediscover your affinity for a constitutional system of checks and balances along with small “l” liberalism.

A multicultural democracy cannot survive without strong procedural guardrails.

Well said and completely agree. And I am a liberal Democrat who supports protecting the environment. But as I have grown older, I have also come to believe that that in matters of governance, the end does NOT justify the means. Without the guardrails of rules and norms, there will be no liberal democracy to protect.

In this case, anyone with a smidgen of objectivity would agree that the EPA vastly exceeded its mandate, as all SC judges (including those on the left) did. Maybe as a nation, we want EPA to have that mandate. But then that has to come from a process of lawmaking, not the creative interpretation of its own authority by an agency. Adherence to rules and norms protects all of us against different types of tyranny, which can come from either end of the political spectrum depending on who is in power.

[phone]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I care about the health of our citizens and natural environment more than any convoluted political dogma. This is the real world where people are suffering and dying from preventable cancer caused by greedy business people who only believe in profit. You legal purists might feel satisfaction in your navel gazing thought experiments but the people you just sided with don’t give a damn about legal purity. They just used you to make a profit and escape any accountability for the death and damage that they cause against innocents. Thanks a whole lot. But at we made some sort of empty statement about “the administrative state”….

SMH

Then use your constitutionally-protected political rights to build the coalition you want to bring about the change you want.

I’m truly flabbergasted that your fellow citizens just went through a nearly 16-year ordeal to build a house on their land facing fines of $40,000 per day from the federal government. The outrageous behavior of the EPA was so flagrant that all 9 nine justices said the EPA went too far and the hand wringing is about how out of control the court is.

I’m glad that you care about your fellow citizens health and about the environment. I share your concerns. But why don’t you redirect your anger and energy at building the political coalition you need to bring about the change you want?

If your answer is really that the government should be able to do what it believes is best to advance the common good regardless of whether the people have given it the authority to do so or not, then you better be prepared to live by those ground rules under a President DeSantis (or worse).

But my guess is that the moment government is under the control of your political opponents you’ll rediscover your affinity for a constitutional system of checks and balances along with small “l” liberalism.

A multicultural democracy cannot survive without strong procedural guardrails.

Well said and completely agree. And I am a liberal Democrat who supports protecting the environment. But as I have grown older, I have also come to believe that that in matters of governance, the end does NOT justify the means. Without the guardrails of rules and norms, there will be no liberal democracy to protect.

In this case, anyone with a smidgen of objectivity would agree that the EPA vastly exceeded its mandate, as all SC judges (including those on the left) did. Maybe as a nation, we want EPA to have that mandate. But then that has to come from a process of lawmaking, not the creative interpretation of its own authority by an agency. Adherence to rules and norms protects all of us against different types of tyranny, which can come from either end of the political spectrum depending on who is in power.

That all sounds like a nice goal but once again these natural ecosystems will not continue to exist if we keep quibbling about our legal system. The laws have been corrupted and ignored by wealthy industrial capitalists for the entire existence of our legal system. The EPA was created legally and is good enough for me. I measure justice by what the real world results are and not some fantasy of one day achieving a perfect dogma.

You act like I don’t stand for rules and principles. That isn’t the case. The rule and norm that I stand for is one where our shared natural resources are not destroyed by private interests.

Plus one

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I care about the health of our citizens and natural environment more than any convoluted political dogma. This is the real world where people are suffering and dying from preventable cancer caused by greedy business people who only believe in profit. You legal purists might feel satisfaction in your navel gazing thought experiments but the people you just sided with don’t give a damn about legal purity. They just used you to make a profit and escape any accountability for the death and damage that they cause against innocents. Thanks a whole lot. But at we made some sort of empty statement about “the administrative state”….

SMH

Then use your constitutionally-protected political rights to build the coalition you want to bring about the change you want.

I’m truly flabbergasted that your fellow citizens just went through a nearly 16-year ordeal to build a house on their land facing fines of $40,000 per day from the federal government. The outrageous behavior of the EPA was so flagrant that all 9 nine justices said the EPA went too far and the hand wringing is about how out of control the court is.

I’m glad that you care about your fellow citizens health and about the environment. I share your concerns. But why don’t you redirect your anger and energy at building the political coalition you need to bring about the change you want?

If your answer is really that the government should be able to do what it believes is best to advance the common good regardless of whether the people have given it the authority to do so or not, then you better be prepared to live by those ground rules under a President DeSantis (or worse).

But my guess is that the moment government is under the control of your political opponents you’ll rediscover your affinity for a constitutional system of checks and balances along with small “l” liberalism.

A multicultural democracy cannot survive without strong procedural guardrails.

Well said and completely agree. And I am a liberal Democrat who supports protecting the environment. But as I have grown older, I have also come to believe that that in matters of governance, the end does NOT justify the means. Without the guardrails of rules and norms, there will be no liberal democracy to protect.

In this case, anyone with a smidgen of objectivity would agree that the EPA vastly exceeded its mandate, as all SC judges (including those on the left) did. Maybe as a nation, we want EPA to have that mandate. But then that has to come from a process of lawmaking, not the creative interpretation of its own authority by an agency. Adherence to rules and norms protects all of us against different types of tyranny, which can come from either end of the political spectrum depending on who is in power.

Yes that is beyond dispute

What is being disputed is the over reach in gutting the entire CWA that was enacted by Congress over 50 years ago and has had a very positive impact on the quality of our natural water systems.

We can fire members of the executive branch unlike the Supreme Court justices who have life time gigs and fail to implement the most basic of ethical codes of conduct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I care about the health of our citizens and natural environment more than any convoluted political dogma. This is the real world where people are suffering and dying from preventable cancer caused by greedy business people who only believe in profit. You legal purists might feel satisfaction in your navel gazing thought experiments but the people you just sided with don’t give a damn about legal purity. They just used you to make a profit and escape any accountability for the death and damage that they cause against innocents. Thanks a whole lot. But at we made some sort of empty statement about “the administrative state”….

SMH

Then use your constitutionally-protected political rights to build the coalition you want to bring about the change you want.

I’m truly flabbergasted that your fellow citizens just went through a nearly 16-year ordeal to build a house on their land facing fines of $40,000 per day from the federal government. The outrageous behavior of the EPA was so flagrant that all 9 nine justices said the EPA went too far and the hand wringing is about how out of control the court is.

I’m glad that you care about your fellow citizens health and about the environment. I share your concerns. But why don’t you redirect your anger and energy at building the political coalition you need to bring about the change you want?

If your answer is really that the government should be able to do what it believes is best to advance the common good regardless of whether the people have given it the authority to do so or not, then you better be prepared to live by those ground rules under a President DeSantis (or worse).

But my guess is that the moment government is under the control of your political opponents you’ll rediscover your affinity for a constitutional system of checks and balances along with small “l” liberalism.

A multicultural democracy cannot survive without strong procedural guardrails.

Well said and completely agree. And I am a liberal Democrat who supports protecting the environment. But as I have grown older, I have also come to believe that that in matters of governance, the end does NOT justify the means. Without the guardrails of rules and norms, there will be no liberal democracy to protect.

In this case, anyone with a smidgen of objectivity would agree that the EPA vastly exceeded its mandate, as all SC judges (including those on the left) did. Maybe as a nation, we want EPA to have that mandate. But then that has to come from a process of lawmaking, not the creative interpretation of its own authority by an agency. Adherence to rules and norms protects all of us against different types of tyranny, which can come from either end of the political spectrum depending on who is in power.

The agency is filled with people who have masters and PhD in environmental science, water safety and the like. The Congress is filled with mostly political hacks. Which if these two buckets should be interpreting the mandate under the law authorized by the Congress and signed by in this case, Richard Nixon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I care about the health of our citizens and natural environment more than any convoluted political dogma. This is the real world where people are suffering and dying from preventable cancer caused by greedy business people who only believe in profit. You legal purists might feel satisfaction in your navel gazing thought experiments but the people you just sided with don’t give a damn about legal purity. They just used you to make a profit and escape any accountability for the death and damage that they cause against innocents. Thanks a whole lot. But at we made some sort of empty statement about “the administrative state”….

SMH

Then use your constitutionally-protected political rights to build the coalition you want to bring about the change you want.

I’m truly flabbergasted that your fellow citizens just went through a nearly 16-year ordeal to build a house on their land facing fines of $40,000 per day from the federal government. The outrageous behavior of the EPA was so flagrant that all 9 nine justices said the EPA went too far and the hand wringing is about how out of control the court is.

I’m glad that you care about your fellow citizens health and about the environment. I share your concerns. But why don’t you redirect your anger and energy at building the political coalition you need to bring about the change you want?

If your answer is really that the government should be able to do what it believes is best to advance the common good regardless of whether the people have given it the authority to do so or not, then you better be prepared to live by those ground rules under a President DeSantis (or worse).

But my guess is that the moment government is under the control of your political opponents you’ll rediscover your affinity for a constitutional system of checks and balances along with small “l” liberalism.

A multicultural democracy cannot survive without strong procedural guardrails.

Completely agree - we need them to reign in over reaches of the Supreme Court - they have been a distasteful for democracy - I remember when the partisan SC handed Bush Junior the election for procedural reasons even though he lost the popular vote and Miami would have given Gore the electoral college if the partisan woman supposed to confirm the vote had not failed to do so on manufactured procedural grounds.

It has been down hill since there since the SC has become More partisan.

I commend Justice Brett K thought on who if he cares about SC rulings impact our environment and good supply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I care about the health of our citizens and natural environment more than any convoluted political dogma. This is the real world where people are suffering and dying from preventable cancer caused by greedy business people who only believe in profit. You legal purists might feel satisfaction in your navel gazing thought experiments but the people you just sided with don’t give a damn about legal purity. They just used you to make a profit and escape any accountability for the death and damage that they cause against innocents. Thanks a whole lot. But at we made some sort of empty statement about “the administrative state”….

SMH

Then use your constitutionally-protected political rights to build the coalition you want to bring about the change you want.

I’m truly flabbergasted that your fellow citizens just went through a nearly 16-year ordeal to build a house on their land facing fines of $40,000 per day from the federal government. The outrageous behavior of the EPA was so flagrant that all 9 nine justices said the EPA went too far and the hand wringing is about how out of control the court is.

I’m glad that you care about your fellow citizens health and about the environment. I share your concerns. But why don’t you redirect your anger and energy at building the political coalition you need to bring about the change you want?

If your answer is really that the government should be able to do what it believes is best to advance the common good regardless of whether the people have given it the authority to do so or not, then you better be prepared to live by those ground rules under a President DeSantis (or worse).

But my guess is that the moment government is under the control of your political opponents you’ll rediscover your affinity for a constitutional system of checks and balances along with small “l” liberalism.

A multicultural democracy cannot survive without strong procedural guardrails.

Well said and completely agree. And I am a liberal Democrat who supports protecting the environment. But as I have grown older, I have also come to believe that that in matters of governance, the end does NOT justify the means. Without the guardrails of rules and norms, there will be no liberal democracy to protect.

In this case, anyone with a smidgen of objectivity would agree that the EPA vastly exceeded its mandate, as all SC judges (including those on the left) did. Maybe as a nation, we want EPA to have that mandate. But then that has to come from a process of lawmaking, not the creative interpretation of its own authority by an agency. Adherence to rules and norms protects all of us against different types of tyranny, which can come from either end of the political spectrum depending on who is in power.

The agency is filled with people who have masters and PhD in environmental science, water safety and the like. The Congress is filled with mostly political hacks. Which if these two buckets should be interpreting the mandate under the law authorized by the Congress and signed by in this case, Richard Nixon?

Oh please - EPA scientists often have their scientific rationales messed with by EPA political appointees when the Republicans are in power. I have seen doc gained through FOIA where three quarters of EPAs documents were blackened out with the preferred narrative inserted …