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.

It's not a power grab. It was a common sense interpretation that has been in place for 50 years. Numerous courts have affirmed the EPA's ability to do exactly what it was doing. If there's any power grab, it's from the justices on this Court.

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.

It's not a power grab. It was a common sense interpretation that has been in place for 50 years. Numerous courts have affirmed the EPA's ability to do exactly what it was doing. If there's any power grab, it's from the justices on this Court.

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court has gutted the Clean Water Act. How long will it take for the Potomac River to orange again?

How do these political judicial appointees get to interfere with our health so badly (denying women’s reproductive rights and now back peddling on Clean Water Act) without them having any medical qualifications?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Administrative agency over reaches and gets slapped back 9-0. No shock here.

Chevron deference is next.

It was 5-4.

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.

Agreed - but the over reach of SC justices who have life time positions and do not self regulate themselves terribly well (see other thread on SCJ) shows us that all three branches of government need more accountability ..

This ruling was unjust in terms of overarching consequences in response to a narrow case of over reach. Quite ironic and not in a good way.

But there is accountability for SCOTUS in this case! Congress can vote to give EPA clearly the authority congress believes EPA should have and POTUS can sign it into law.

Exactly how is the SC accountable for decisions that will result in far more lax oversight of our waterways?

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.

Agreed - but the over reach of SC justices who have life time positions and do not self regulate themselves terribly well (see other thread on SCJ) shows us that all three branches of government need more accountability ..

This ruling was unjust in terms of overarching consequences in response to a narrow case of over reach. Quite ironic and not in a good way.

But there is accountability for SCOTUS in this case! Congress can vote to give EPA clearly the authority congress believes EPA should have and POTUS can sign it into law.

Exactly how is the SC accountable for decisions that will result in far more lax oversight of our waterways?

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.

Agreed - but the over reach of SC justices who have life time positions and do not self regulate themselves terribly well (see other thread on SCJ) shows us that all three branches of government need more accountability ..

This ruling was unjust in terms of overarching consequences in response to a narrow case of over reach. Quite ironic and not in a good way.

But there is accountability for SCOTUS in this case! Congress can vote to give EPA clearly the authority congress believes EPA should have and POTUS can sign it into law.

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.

Agreed - but the over reach of SC justices who have life time positions and do not self regulate themselves terribly well (see other thread on SCJ) shows us that all three branches of government need more accountability ..

This ruling was unjust in terms of overarching consequences in response to a narrow case of over reach. Quite ironic and not in a good way.

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.

Agreed - but the over reach of SC justices who have life time positions and do not self regulate themselves terribly well (see other thread on SCJ) shows us that all three branches of government need more accountability ..

This ruling was unjust in terms of overarching consequences in response to a narrow case of over reach. Quite ironic and not in a good way.

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.

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.

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.

Plus one

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Administrative agency over reaches and gets slapped back 9-0. No shock here.

Chevron deference is next.

It was 5-4.

It was 9-0 in concluding that EPA overreached with respect to the litigants of the case. It was 9-0 to scrap the existing test used by EPA as an overreach. It was 5-4 on which test would replace the now defunct test.

From SCOTUSblog.com

The above really misrepresents the ruling

…Four justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – agreed that the CWA does not apply to the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot, but they disagreed with the majority’s reasoning. In an opinion joined by the three liberal justices, Kavanaugh contended that “[b]y narrowing the Act’s coverage of wetlands to only adjoining wetlands, the Court’s new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States.” For example, Kavanaugh noted, under the court’s new test, the wetlands on the other side of levees on the Mississippi River will not be covered by the CWA, even though they “are often an important part of the flood-control project” for the river. Moreover, Kavanaugh added, the court’s new test “is sufficiently novel and vague” that it will create precisely the kind of regulatory uncertainty that the majority criticized.

Instead, Kavanaugh would adopt a more expansive test, under which the CWA would apply to wetlands that are either next to a larger body of water or separated from such a body of water by a man-made or natural barrier, such as a dike or a beach dune. Because the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot “do not fall into either of those categories,” Kavanaugh agreed that they would still not be covered by the CWA.

Kagan also wrote a brief opinion of her own, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, in which she criticized what she characterized as “the Court’s appointment of itself as the national decision-maker on environmental policy.” In her view, Congress deliberately drafted the CWA with a broad reach to “address a problem of ‘crisis proportions.’” Although the majority disagrees with that decision, she wrote, it cannot “rewrite Congress’s plain instructions because they go further than” the court would like. But that is precisely what the majority did here, she concluded, just as it did last year when it curtailed the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

No, it doesn’t.

1. All nine justices agreed that EPA overreached in regulating under the CWA the activity of the Sacket family.

2. All nine justices agreed that the existing test for applicability of the CWA’s “adjacent” language needed to scrapped.

3. 5 justices agreed that “adjacent”would mean waters that are “adjoining” navigable waters. 4 justices said this new understanding went too far in the other direction and adjoining means something different from adjacent under the CWA.

No matter which combo of 5 justices you put together, they agree that EPA went too far in this particular case. The only question was how far to dial the EPA back.

Imagine a scale of 1-10 with EPA interpreting CWA allowing it to regulate at a level 10 (maximum). All 9 said level 10 is beyond what CWA authorizes. The 5 controlling justices dialed EPA back to 5, while the 4 concurring justices may have dialed EPA back to 8. Either way, EPA’s authority was going to be significantly curtailed by this case, it was only a matter of how significantly.

Today is a great day and if people want EPA to regulate at a level 10, they can go through the political process of giving the EPA that authority.

On to the demise of Chevron deference next!

You're cheering on pollution? Yikes.

You embrace tyranny? Double yikes.

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.