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

[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.

Every tyrant (or to be more exact, every movement that has empowered tyrants) throughout history has beloved in the righteousness of its cause. That’s literally the lesson of history. Caesar was just trying to establish Pax Romana in the provinces and provide protection from the barbarians at the gates. He couldn’t let a silly little thing like the senate get in his way. And so on throughout history, including the shameful times our country has failed to live up to its ideals.

You think you stand for rules and principles but what you’re really expressing is an outcome. As PP correctly said, you’re expressing the idea that the ends justify the means. That is a TOTALLY legitimate position to take as long as you are willing to live with it when your political opponents are in control of the government.

If the ends justify the means only for so long as the ends line up with your goals, but when Trump or DeSantis or some other deplorable to you is in power you want it reassert the constitutional order of checks and balances, then you’ll sign the death certificate for our democracy.

An insurgent Christian nationalist movement is using the same words you are using but inserting their goals. They are measuring “liberalism” and “justice” by real world results as compared against their goals. They too are tired of process and procedure that leads to bad outcomes. Proceed down this path at your own risk.

[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.

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

[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.

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

I’ve read MJS for at least a decade and he’s one of the most hyper partisan analysts out there. Taking his analysis as good faith, he’s neither right or wrong in his write up. I am not right or wrong, either. Analysis, by its definition, is opinion.

As a matter of record, Kavanaugh didn’t “object.” That’s not an applicable word here, but even conceptually, if K plus the three liberals felts strongly that Alito and the majority were offsides, any combo would have filed a dissent. Again, there was no dissent in this case. All 9 agreed that there is a real EPA overreach problem here and the only question was how far to pull the EPA back.

MJS, as is typical of him, is quoting the parts he finds favorable and summarizing the parts of the controlling opinion he doesn’t like in order to paint it in the worst light possible.

If you read the controlling opinion, Alito points out that the ambiguous nature of the CWA’s language keeps bringing these issues back in front of the court. MJS cites that somehow Alito is grabbing onto this ongoing problem as a reason to do what Alito wants. MJS ignores Alito’s point that each time SCOTUS has expressed reservations or brushed back the EPA/COE on interpretation of the CWA, the agencies have responded by expanding the scope of their power or minimizing SCOTUS rulings. Rather than being humbled, the agencies have been defiant in the face of SCOTUS. MJS fails to bring up this history.

While MJS is right that the new controlling definition appears nowhere in the law, he conveniently ignores thet no definition for “adjacent” is provided in the law either. So whatever controls will “appear nowhere” in the law. If SCOTUS’s applied definition is wrong for not appearing in the law then certainly EPA’s definition is similarly fatally flawed, right?

MJS also fails to note that Sackett is completely in line with a a key 2006 plurality opinion on these very issues. Stated plainly, the EPA had fair warning this was coming and the EPA has consistently told SCOTUS to pound sand.

Don’t take my word for it. Don’t take Slate’s word for it. I encourage you to be an informed citizen: read all of the opinions (controlling and concurring) for yourself and come up with your own ideas.

One important note, MJS’s conclusion is completely wrong: the court has not appointed itself final arbiter on this controversy. Congress and the President can restore the predecessor regulatory regime thru the legislative process. That MJS would rather focus his ire on the controlling opinion and ignore the political process is fairly typical of his style.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[[…]
One important note, MJS’s conclusion is completely wrong: the court has not appointed itself final arbiter on this controversy. Congress and the President can restore the predecessor regulatory regime thru the legislative process. That MJS would rather focus his ire on the controlling opinion and ignore the political process is fairly typical of his style.

I think it’s appropriate to use the GOP’s projected concerns with the judiciary here since they apply perfectly. This is judicial extremism from activist judges who are, at their base, opposed to the aims of the EPA because they do not think pollution and climate change are real, at least not real enough to justify being responsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[[…]
One important note, MJS’s conclusion is completely wrong: the court has not appointed itself final arbiter on this controversy. Congress and the President can restore the predecessor regulatory regime thru the legislative process. That MJS would rather focus his ire on the controlling opinion and ignore the political process is fairly typical of his style.

I think it’s appropriate to use the GOP’s projected concerns with the judiciary here since they apply perfectly. This is judicial extremism from activist judges who are, at their base, opposed to the aims of the EPA because they do not think pollution and climate change are real, at least not real enough to justify being responsible.

Plus one

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Every tyrant (or to be more exact, every movement that has empowered tyrants) throughout history has beloved in the righteousness of its cause. That’s literally the lesson of history. Caesar was just trying to establish Pax Romana in the provinces and provide protection from the barbarians at the gates. He couldn’t let a silly little thing like the senate get in his way. And so on throughout history, including the shameful times our country has failed to live up to its ideals.

You think you stand for rules and principles but what you’re really expressing is an outcome. As PP correctly said, you’re expressing the idea that the ends justify the means. That is a TOTALLY legitimate position to take as long as you are willing to live with it when your political opponents are in control of the government.

If the ends justify the means only for so long as the ends line up with your goals, but when Trump or DeSantis or some other deplorable to you is in power you want it reassert the constitutional order of checks and balances, then you’ll sign the death certificate for our democracy.

An insurgent Christian nationalist movement is using the same words you are using but inserting their goals. They are measuring “liberalism” and “justice” by real world results as compared against their goals. They too are tired of process and procedure that leads to bad outcomes. Proceed down this path at your own risk.

Again you are misusing general agreement regarding one narrow case of executive branch over reach in order to justify an unelected court gutting the entire CW act. You continually fail to grasp the irony regarding the judicial branch’s extreme over reach.

Now you are using the same Narrow case to propose a grandiose theory of history that cites the corruption of Ancient Rome, even though it was never a fully fledged democracy anyway. It was controlled by aristocratic men. Women, slaves, the proletariat and younger men were excluded formally from power.

Those of us who wish to protect our fragile environment rely on solid and pain staking science, while white Christin nationalists rely on scripturally unsound dogmas and hate and fear mongering.

You claim the lofty high ground that really is more slippery than the wet lands you are fine with letting corporations and agricultural sector pollute without sensible restraints.

[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.

What are YOUR plans to get legislation to prevent the destruction of fragile wetlands by either corporate or private entities?

[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.

+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.

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

I’ve read MJS for at least a decade and he’s one of the most hyper partisan analysts out there. Taking his analysis as good faith, he’s neither right or wrong in his write up. I am not right or wrong, either. Analysis, by its definition, is opinion.

As a matter of record, Kavanaugh didn’t “object.” That’s not an applicable word here, but even conceptually, if K plus the three liberals felts strongly that Alito and the majority were offsides, any combo would have filed a dissent. Again, there was no dissent in this case. All 9 agreed that there is a real EPA overreach problem here and the only question was how far to pull the EPA back.

MJS, as is typical of him, is quoting the parts he finds favorable and summarizing the parts of the controlling opinion he doesn’t like in order to paint it in the worst light possible.

If you read the controlling opinion, Alito points out that the ambiguous nature of the CWA’s language keeps bringing these issues back in front of the court. MJS cites that somehow Alito is grabbing onto this ongoing problem as a reason to do what Alito wants. MJS ignores Alito’s point that each time SCOTUS has expressed reservations or brushed back the EPA/COE on interpretation of the CWA, the agencies have responded by expanding the scope of their power or minimizing SCOTUS rulings. Rather than being humbled, the agencies have been defiant in the face of SCOTUS. MJS fails to bring up this history.

While MJS is right that the new controlling definition appears nowhere in the law, he conveniently ignores thet no definition for “adjacent” is provided in the law either. So whatever controls will “appear nowhere” in the law. If SCOTUS’s applied definition is wrong for not appearing in the law then certainly EPA’s definition is similarly fatally flawed, right?

MJS also fails to note that Sackett is completely in line with a a key 2006 plurality opinion on these very issues. Stated plainly, the EPA had fair warning this was coming and the EPA has consistently told SCOTUS to pound sand.

Don’t take my word for it. Don’t take Slate’s word for it. I encourage you to be an informed citizen: read all of the opinions (controlling and concurring) for yourself and come up with your own ideas.

One important note, MJS’s conclusion is completely wrong: the court has not appointed itself final arbiter on this controversy. Congress and the President can restore the predecessor regulatory regime thru the legislative process. That MJS would rather focus his ire on the controlling opinion and ignore the political process is fairly typical of his style.

The fact that you took seven paragraphs to obscure and obfuscate the fact that the majority is resting its opinion on a word (adjacent) that has a commonly know meaning, found in any dictionary, says it all.

These cases have been brought, just as the abortion cases were, in order to give the court multiple bites at the apple, hoping that one day the case would be ripe. Yesterday it was. The result was pre-ordained politically. That's all this is.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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

Sound like you would support a dictator as long as they did what you wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The Supreme Court did not say otherwise. They just looked at the definitions in the law and concluded that the water in question was not covered by the Clean Water Act.

[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.

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.

They didn't throw out the Clean Water Act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Every tyrant (or to be more exact, every movement that has empowered tyrants) throughout history has beloved in the righteousness of its cause. That’s literally the lesson of history. Caesar was just trying to establish Pax Romana in the provinces and provide protection from the barbarians at the gates. He couldn’t let a silly little thing like the senate get in his way. And so on throughout history, including the shameful times our country has failed to live up to its ideals.

You think you stand for rules and principles but what you’re really expressing is an outcome. As PP correctly said, you’re expressing the idea that the ends justify the means. That is a TOTALLY legitimate position to take as long as you are willing to live with it when your political opponents are in control of the government.

If the ends justify the means only for so long as the ends line up with your goals, but when Trump or DeSantis or some other deplorable to you is in power you want it reassert the constitutional order of checks and balances, then you’ll sign the death certificate for our democracy.

An insurgent Christian nationalist movement is using the same words you are using but inserting their goals. They are measuring “liberalism” and “justice” by real world results as compared against their goals. They too are tired of process and procedure that leads to bad outcomes. Proceed down this path at your own risk.

Again you are misusing general agreement regarding one narrow case of executive branch over reach in order to justify an unelected court gutting the entire CW act. You continually fail to grasp the irony regarding the judicial branch’s extreme over reach.

Now you are using the same Narrow case to propose a grandiose theory of history that cites the corruption of Ancient Rome, even though it was never a fully fledged democracy anyway. It was controlled by aristocratic men. Women, slaves, the proletariat and younger men were excluded formally from power.

Those of us who wish to protect our fragile environment rely on solid and pain staking science, while white Christin nationalists rely on scripturally unsound dogmas and hate and fear mongering.

You claim the lofty high ground that really is more slippery than the wet lands you are fine with letting corporations and agricultural sector pollute without sensible restraints.

Please quote the part of the constitution that says the rules don’t apply because you are relying on pain staking science. Please cite the part of the constitution that says the rules don’t apply because you want sensible restraints to protect the fragile environment.

Whether you realize it or not, you are making the argument that the rules shouldn’t apply to your side because of the nobility and righteousness of your cause. But every tyrant in history has been convinced of his cause. “It’s different when I’m in charge” is a really crappy limiting principle. More commonly, this is stated as “the ends justify the means.”

Look, I don’t care if you’re an authoritarian that doesn’t believe in checks and balances. Call yourself a philosopher king if you want a softer label. Reject small L liberalism if you wish. But own it. Your position here makes it clear that you aren’t committed to divisions of power or the constitutional process. You only care about outcomes. You want what you want and you don’t seem to particularly care what it takes to get there.

I’m not claiming a lofty high ground. I was born and raised in a country where there are few checks on government and rule of law means whatever the people who happen to be in power think is the best thing to do. My home country has limped along for 100+ years, sometimes experiencing horrendous, destabilizing violence. By luck, I am also a US citizen and have been able to escape that mess and live and raise a family in the USA. From experience, I’m a huge fan of the American system of checks and balances. And while pollution is terrible and horrendous (try growing up where you have never been able to drink the tap water or can never swim in the ocean), your anger is misplaced here.

Be angry at the EPA for consistently thumbing its nose at SCOTUS, be angry at Congress for abdicating its responsibility to lead and delegating authority to an unelected bureaucracy, or better yet engage in the political process to achieve the change you want.

Look, calling SCOTUS unelected, while defending the EPA really undermines your argument. SCOTUS at least was granted its power via the Constitutional process. Perhaps that was a mistake, but the people had some say in that. There is no such saving feature when it comes to the EPA’s status as an unelected, rulemaking and enforcement body. I don’t think you actually care that SCOTUS is unelected because if electoral status really mattered you’d dislike the EPA even more.

[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.

+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.

There was no judicial overreach. The US has 2 billion acres. EPA overstepped the law to add protection for additional areas that were not covered by the law. Not sure how large, as the liberal media will exaggerate for effect. You say millions, I have seen hundreds of millions of acres as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think it’s appropriate to use the GOP’s projected concerns with the judiciary here since they apply perfectly. This is judicial extremism from activist judges who are, at their base, opposed to the aims of the EPA because they do not think pollution and climate change are real, at least not real enough to justify being responsible.

Their opinions didn't matter. They applied the law and said the EPA was overstepping its bounds. It is liberal judges that engage in overreach, like allowing a childrens' lawsuit that seeks to order the US government to impose carbon emissions caps.