Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The guy filled in water feature that leads to other water. his actions, now legal, impact the insects, birds and animals that have depended on those water features.
Eventually, we simply wont have a viable ecosystem.
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
So? I am capable of independent thought. Water that ends up in our public waters needs to be protected and regulated. Why should an individual be allowed to pollute water that ends up harming others?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The guy filled in water feature that leads to other water. his actions, now legal, impact the insects, birds and animals that have depended on those water features.
Eventually, we simply wont have a viable ecosystem.
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:The guy filled in water feature that leads to other water. his actions, now legal, impact the insects, birds and animals that have depended on those water features.
Eventually, we simply wont have a viable ecosystem.
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:Anonymous wrote:I know!! Let’s impeach all but the democrats and fill the entire SC with democrats because that’s the goal here. I don’t think y’all know how transparent and gullible you all are.
Actually that’s a really, really good idea!
I know you’re being sarcastic, but it reveals how stupid you are. Its a laudable goal. We should strive for it.