Skip to comments.Supremes Question EPA Supremacy
Posted on 01/19/2012 1:20:28 PM PST by 92nina
On January 9, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving yet another instance of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) overreach. Sackett v. EPA involves two Idaho property-owners with a .63 acre parcel near idyllic Priest Lake. In 2007, Michael and Chantell Sackett sought to build a home on their bucolic real estate and began preparing their land for construction. Their dreams were thwarted when the EPA asserted that their property was a federally protected wetland. The EPA ordered Mr. and Mrs. Sackett to reverse their actions and obtain a multi-thousand dollar permit prior to any subsequent home construction. Non-compliance with this order would have resulted in a fine of more than $30,000 per day.
The issue before the Court is whether the EPAs authority to issue non-reviewable compliance orders under the Clean Water Act violates a property-owners Fifth Amendment right to due process. Not surprisingly, the comical Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to uphold this basic protection against government expropriation. Fortunately for the Sacketts, the jurists of the High Court appeared to recognize that the Obama Administrations argument did not pass the laugh test. Justice Samuel Alito labeled the governments conclusions as outrageous. Chief Justice Roberts gave Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart a taste of his own medicine by asking What would you do [if you were the Sacketts]? Even the Courts liberal bloc got in on the action with Justices Breyer and Kagan ridiculing the actions of the EPA.
Unfortunately, the Sacketts will have to wait until the end of June for the Supreme Court to determine their fate. Until then, they will have to continue to bear the cost of lost time and treasure from their encounter with heavy-handed bureaucrats. Idaho may be the land of potatoes, but leave it to the EPA to ensure that the only thing to get mashed is property rights.
Abolish the EPA and fire the whole bunch
May they be completely abolished, and sooner rather than later.
You beat me by 8 seconds! This load time...sheesh, lol.
What’s most shocking about this case is that the Epa did not back down when it became a cause celebre. You’d think they’d at least want to avoid the shame of having their own heads handed to them publicly.
I would have been sorely tempted to ignore them and see how high the fines would have gotten before they realized that I had absolutely no intention of paying or for that matter ability to pay.
"Mr. Apillar you've violated our order for 400 days! You now owe $12,000,000!...Well, I only have about $10,000 in savings, how about I write y'all an IOU for other $11,990,000. It's what Obama does after all, just tell China to send you the money and I'm sure I'll pay em back!
Haha, I would have continued as well.
Do you think the Supremes will actually consider the intent and meaning of our Constitution for once???-—that old document which they have failed to uphold since Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Maybe, they will realize there is Objective Truth-—God, included in that document-—where our inalienable rights come from—not from Barney Frank.
40 Million dollars.
And, based on reading a transcript of the oral arguments, they did indeed have their heads handed to them. Even the libs were incredulous over the EPA's action - EPA was arguing the landowners could have applied for a permit to build in a wetlands from the Corps of Engineers, and several justices asked why they would apply for a permit to build in wetlands if they didn't believe their land was in a wetlands? And if they were right, wouldn't the permit be turned down, because the Corps doesn't issue a permit unless it is a wetlands. It was like reading Catch-22 all over. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.