Environmentalists
Punishing
Americans
Nuff said.
Supreme Court unanimously rules against the EPA, in favor of landowners
RJ~PWCM~JLA
2012/03/22 12:41:40
From Reuters:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that landowners can sue to challenge a federal government compliance order under the clean water law ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that landowners can sue to challenge a federal government compliance order under the clean water law ...
The justices unanimously rejected the government's position that individuals or companies must first fail to comply with an EPA order and face potentially costly enforcement action before a court can review the case.
The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia was a victory for an Idaho couple who challenged a 2007 EPA order that required them to restore a wetland they had filled with dirt and rock as they began to build a new vacation home near Priest Lake. They were also told to stop construction on the home.
...
The couple, Chantell and Michael Sackett, denied their property had ever contained a wetland and complained they were being forced to comply with an order without a court hearing.
...
The unanimous decision said the Clean Water Act was not "uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into 'voluntary compliance' without the opportunity for judicial review."
...
Government attorneys had defended the compliance orders as a quick way to stop environmental damage and argued that allowing accused polluters to get a court hearing would tie the EPA up in lengthy litigation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here's the Reuters story:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/us-usa-court-epa-id...
Note that Reuters predictably, but stupidly, tries to spin this as a victory for "corporate groups", although this case involves two private citizens building a home. Reuters also drags in Republican criticism of the EPA, also irrelevant to a Supreme Court case.
Also note the tyrannical, above-the-law attitude of the EPA. Their lawyers argued that the EPA should be free to unilaterally issue its edicts without fear of judicial review.
...
The unanimous decision said the Clean Water Act was not "uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into 'voluntary compliance' without the opportunity for judicial review."
...
Government attorneys had defended the compliance orders as a quick way to stop environmental damage and argued that allowing accused polluters to get a court hearing would tie the EPA up in lengthy litigation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here's the Reuters story:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/us-usa-court-epa-id...
Note that Reuters predictably, but stupidly, tries to spin this as a victory for "corporate groups", although this case involves two private citizens building a home. Reuters also drags in Republican criticism of the EPA, also irrelevant to a Supreme Court case.
Also note the tyrannical, above-the-law attitude of the EPA. Their lawyers argued that the EPA should be free to unilaterally issue its edicts without fear of judicial review.
Read More: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/us-usa-c...
Top Opinion
-
Steve J~PWCM~JLA 2012/03/22 14:55:16
I would like to see the EPA go away, they are too corrupt to fix!
Feed the tree huggers to the canyons,
deep canyons.
with a spotted owl hung round their neck!
Time to kick the Eco-fascists to the curb!
EPA is out of control. Don't like em, don't trust em. I'm sure they have their good purposes and fights but they also have too much overreach.
Good analysis of the Reuters story. If they want to be part of the Obama spin machine, they can expect to be ridiculed.