Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Dramatic, much?

+100
Another example of why we can't take liberals seriously.
And this is significant:

The Sackett case centers on a patch of wetlands on property owned by Chantell and Michael Sackett near Priest Lake, Idaho. The couple, who had planned to build their dream home on the property, have been tangling with EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers for a decade and a half over whether it should be subject to Clean Water Act permitting requirements.

The justices unanimously agreed that the couple’s specific wetlands should not be subject to Clean Water Act regulation, and that the court’s prior test, stemming from the 2006 case Rapanos v. United States, should no longer determine the scope of the law. For this reason, Kavanaugh’s opinion and a separate opinion from the court’s liberals, are considered to be concurring opinions.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/25/supreme-court-dramatically-shrinks-clean-water-acts-reach-00098781

I am not sure if you actually read the article, the ruling is a desaster and is a major change from rules that have been there for decades. from the link you cited:

"The Supreme Court on Thursday significantly shrank the reach of federal clean water protections, dealing a major blow to President Joe Biden’s efforts to restore protections to millions of acres of wetlands and delivering a victory to multiple powerful industries.

The ruling from the court’s conservative majority vastly narrowing the federal government’s authority over marshes and bogs is a win for industries such as homebuilding and oil and gas, which must seek Clean Water Act permits to damage federally protected wetlands. Those industries have fought for decades to limit the law’s reach"

"The 5-4 ruling in Sackett v. EPA creates a far narrower test than what has been used for more than half a century to determine which bogs and marshes fall under the scope of the 1972 law. Under the majority’s definition, only those wetlands with a continuous surface water connection to larger streams, lakes and rivers would get federal protections"

I am thrilled they shrank the reach of the EPA. The EPS is an agency that consistently overreaches.
If this is such an urgent issue, get Congress to pass a law instead of relegating it to an agency filled with unelected bureaucrats who rule by ridiculous regulations that they implement.

The justices should be required to drink a glass of water from the locations they just exempted from the Clean Water Act.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Dramatic, much?

+100
Another example of why we can't take liberals seriously.
And this is significant:

The Sackett case centers on a patch of wetlands on property owned by Chantell and Michael Sackett near Priest Lake, Idaho. The couple, who had planned to build their dream home on the property, have been tangling with EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers for a decade and a half over whether it should be subject to Clean Water Act permitting requirements.

The justices unanimously agreed that the couple’s specific wetlands should not be subject to Clean Water Act regulation, and that the court’s prior test, stemming from the 2006 case Rapanos v. United States, should no longer determine the scope of the law. For this reason, Kavanaugh’s opinion and a separate opinion from the court’s liberals, are considered to be concurring opinions.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/25/supreme-court-dramatically-shrinks-clean-water-acts-reach-00098781

I am not sure if you actually read the article, the ruling is a desaster and is a major change from rules that have been there for decades. from the link you cited:

"The Supreme Court on Thursday significantly shrank the reach of federal clean water protections, dealing a major blow to President Joe Biden’s efforts to restore protections to millions of acres of wetlands and delivering a victory to multiple powerful industries.

The ruling from the court’s conservative majority vastly narrowing the federal government’s authority over marshes and bogs is a win for industries such as homebuilding and oil and gas, which must seek Clean Water Act permits to damage federally protected wetlands. Those industries have fought for decades to limit the law’s reach"

"The 5-4 ruling in Sackett v. EPA creates a far narrower test than what has been used for more than half a century to determine which bogs and marshes fall under the scope of the 1972 law. Under the majority’s definition, only those wetlands with a continuous surface water connection to larger streams, lakes and rivers would get federal protections"

I am thrilled they shrank the reach of the EPA. The EPS is an agency that consistently overreaches.
If this is such an urgent issue, get Congress to pass a law instead of relegating it to an agency filled with unelected bureaucrats who rule by ridiculous regulations that they implement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Dramatic, much?

+100
Another example of why we can't take liberals seriously.
And this is significant:

The Sackett case centers on a patch of wetlands on property owned by Chantell and Michael Sackett near Priest Lake, Idaho. The couple, who had planned to build their dream home on the property, have been tangling with EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers for a decade and a half over whether it should be subject to Clean Water Act permitting requirements.

The justices unanimously agreed that the couple’s specific wetlands should not be subject to Clean Water Act regulation, and that the court’s prior test, stemming from the 2006 case Rapanos v. United States, should no longer determine the scope of the law. For this reason, Kavanaugh’s opinion and a separate opinion from the court’s liberals, are considered to be concurring opinions.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/25/supreme-court-dramatically-shrinks-clean-water-acts-reach-00098781

I am not sure if you actually read the article, the ruling is a desaster and is a major change from rules that have been there for decades. from the link you cited:

"The Supreme Court on Thursday significantly shrank the reach of federal clean water protections, dealing a major blow to President Joe Biden’s efforts to restore protections to millions of acres of wetlands and delivering a victory to multiple powerful industries.

The ruling from the court’s conservative majority vastly narrowing the federal government’s authority over marshes and bogs is a win for industries such as homebuilding and oil and gas, which must seek Clean Water Act permits to damage federally protected wetlands. Those industries have fought for decades to limit the law’s reach"

"The 5-4 ruling in Sackett v. EPA creates a far narrower test than what has been used for more than half a century to determine which bogs and marshes fall under the scope of the 1972 law. Under the majority’s definition, only those wetlands with a continuous surface water connection to larger streams, lakes and rivers would get federal protections"

I am thrilled they shrank the reach of the EPA. The EPS is an agency that consistently overreaches.
If this is such an urgent issue, get Congress to pass a law instead of relegating it to an agency filled with unelected bureaucrats who rule by ridiculous regulations that they implement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Dramatic, much?

The rule they just overturned was responsible for removing a lot of the agricultural runoff from the Potomac (as well as every other river in the country).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Dramatic, much?

+100
Another example of why we can't take liberals seriously.
And this is significant:

The Sackett case centers on a patch of wetlands on property owned by Chantell and Michael Sackett near Priest Lake, Idaho. The couple, who had planned to build their dream home on the property, have been tangling with EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers for a decade and a half over whether it should be subject to Clean Water Act permitting requirements.

The justices unanimously agreed that the couple’s specific wetlands should not be subject to Clean Water Act regulation, and that the court’s prior test, stemming from the 2006 case Rapanos v. United States, should no longer determine the scope of the law. For this reason, Kavanaugh’s opinion and a separate opinion from the court’s liberals, are considered to be concurring opinions.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/25/supreme-court-dramatically-shrinks-clean-water-acts-reach-00098781

I am not sure if you actually read the article, the ruling is a desaster and is a major change from rules that have been there for decades. from the link you cited:

"The Supreme Court on Thursday significantly shrank the reach of federal clean water protections, dealing a major blow to President Joe Biden’s efforts to restore protections to millions of acres of wetlands and delivering a victory to multiple powerful industries.

The ruling from the court’s conservative majority vastly narrowing the federal government’s authority over marshes and bogs is a win for industries such as homebuilding and oil and gas, which must seek Clean Water Act permits to damage federally protected wetlands. Those industries have fought for decades to limit the law’s reach"

"The 5-4 ruling in Sackett v. EPA creates a far narrower test than what has been used for more than half a century to determine which bogs and marshes fall under the scope of the 1972 law. Under the majority’s definition, only those wetlands with a continuous surface water connection to larger streams, lakes and rivers would get federal protections"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Dramatic, much?

+100
Another example of why we can't take liberals seriously.
And this is significant:

The Sackett case centers on a patch of wetlands on property owned by Chantell and Michael Sackett near Priest Lake, Idaho. The couple, who had planned to build their dream home on the property, have been tangling with EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers for a decade and a half over whether it should be subject to Clean Water Act permitting requirements.

The justices unanimously agreed that the couple’s specific wetlands should not be subject to Clean Water Act regulation, and that the court’s prior test, stemming from the 2006 case Rapanos v. United States, should no longer determine the scope of the law. For this reason, Kavanaugh’s opinion and a separate opinion from the court’s liberals, are considered to be concurring opinions.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/25/supreme-court-dramatically-shrinks-clean-water-acts-reach-00098781

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Dramatic, much?

+100
Another example of why we can't take liberals seriously.
And this is significant:

The Sackett case centers on a patch of wetlands on property owned by Chantell and Michael Sackett near Priest Lake, Idaho. The couple, who had planned to build their dream home on the property, have been tangling with EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers for a decade and a half over whether it should be subject to Clean Water Act permitting requirements.

The justices unanimously agreed that the couple’s specific wetlands should not be subject to Clean Water Act regulation, and that the court’s prior test, stemming from the 2006 case Rapanos v. United States, should no longer determine the scope of the law. For this reason, Kavanaugh’s opinion and a separate opinion from the court’s liberals, are considered to be concurring opinions.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/25/supreme-court-dramatically-shrinks-clean-water-acts-reach-00098781

Anonymous wrote:



Dramatic, much?

The Sackett case centers on a patch of wetlands on property owned by Chantell and Michael Sackett near Priest Lake, Idaho. The couple, who had planned to build their dream home on the property, have been tangling with EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers for a decade and a half over whether it should be subject to Clean Water Act permitting requirements.

The justices unanimously agreed that the couple’s specific wetlands should not be subject to Clean Water Act regulation, and that the court’s prior test, stemming from the 2006 case Rapanos v. United States, should no longer determine the scope of the law. For this reason, Kavanaugh’s opinion and a separate opinion from the court’s liberals, are considered to be concurring opinions.

Anonymous wrote:



Dramatic, much?