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

[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.

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

Vote and organize. My passion cause is the national parks. Among the best ideas America has ever had. There’s a lot of overlap there with conservationist and environmental groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

And the EPA was ignoring this clear meaning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the controlling language is so commonly (and easily) understood, perhaps the EPA could have lived within its granted authority? But as Justice Alito pointed out in his opinion, the EPA has a proven and consistent history of being unable to understand what the CWA means.

As for the rest of your post: Sure? Hunting for just the right case to bring before the court is a widely used and accepted strategy.

[Anonymous]

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

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

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

I remember the guy who created a burn circle around his property during the CA wildfires. He saved his house but accidentally encroached on Federal land by a micro amount. Government went after him. Sick stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

I prefer a lovely shade of chartreuse myself.

I was listening to a call from a child and her parent to a psychologist on a radio show. The ten year old little girl was paralyzed with fear about climate change and death. That’s why you leftists do to children. It’s sick stuff

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The problem with giving states all the control is that if your state is downstream from a state that doesn't care about water quality, you're out of luck. Waterways and wetlands do not know about or care about man-made borders, they only follow the laws of physics and fluid dynamics. That's why it makes more sense for this to be regulated at a federal level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I prefer a lovely shade of chartreuse myself.

I was listening to a call from a child and her parent to a psychologist on a radio show. The ten year old little girl was paralyzed with fear about climate change and death. That’s why you leftists do to children. It’s sick stuff

Sure you did. And by the way, every time you people use the word "leftist" all the rest of us see you as this 🤡

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The problem with giving states all the control is that if your state is downstream from a state that doesn't care about water quality, you're out of luck. Waterways and wetlands do not know about or care about man-made borders, they only follow the laws of physics and fluid dynamics. That's why it makes more sense for this to be regulated at a federal level.

Not as big of an issue as you would think. With notable exceptions, the states tend to get redder as you flow down the watershed.

It can still be regulated federally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The problem with giving states all the control is that if your state is downstream from a state that doesn't care about water quality, you're out of luck. Waterways and wetlands do not know about or care about man-made borders, they only follow the laws of physics and fluid dynamics. That's why it makes more sense for this to be regulated at a federal level.

Not as big of an issue as you would think. With notable exceptions, the states tend to get redder as you flow down the watershed.

It can still be regulated federally.

It’s not just about differences between states, though. It’s driven by a few greedy interest groups that have outsized influence in almost every state. This is something that has been pushed by commercial and real estate developers and agriculture interests to allow them to fill and develop wetlands, allow more polluted runoff in them, etc. as if all that doesn’t eventually make it into navigable waterways and public water supplies. A natural savannah that serves as a big sponge holding stormwater so it doesn’t all immediately flow into a river or bay is a great benefit to any watershed for flood control and water quality. These a**holes want to develop them and pollute them and that will increase flood risk and pollution throughout the watersheds. Even blue states are suckers for developers and agribusinesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I prefer a lovely shade of chartreuse myself.

I was listening to a call from a child and her parent to a psychologist on a radio show. The ten year old little girl was paralyzed with fear about climate change and death. That’s why you leftists do to children. It’s sick stuff

I guess you would rather have them actually dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh “applied the law,” just like those horrendous extremists forced their religious mania on us while they “ReSpEcTeD pReCeDeNt” on abortion. Don’t pee on my leg and say it’s nice clean water. Drink it yourself.