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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
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.

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

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics