Posted on 06/25/2007 5:55:55 PM PDT by AuntB
WASHINGTON, DC Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, today lauded the Supreme Courts ruling on the National Association of Home Builders et al. V. Defenders of Wildlife et al." The Courts 5-4 ruling overturned the Ninth Circuit decision that would have allowed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to override other federal environmental laws by forbidding the Environmental Protection Agency from delegating water pollution control authority to the state of Arizona based on possible indirect effects to threatened and endangered species.
Todays Supreme Court ruling limiting the scope of the Endangered Species Act is a huge victory for states rights and property owners in America. The Court took a strong stand against judicial activism in overturning a Ninth Circuit Court decision that would have essentially voided a section of the Clean Water Act, Senator Inhofe said.
While Defenders of Wildlife and others may want the Endangered Species Act to trump all other environmental laws, the Supreme Court has once again reaffirmed that it is the Constitutional duty of Congress to write the nations laws; not for the courts to reinterpret statutes to add requirements that are clearly not there.
Background:
Under section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act, EPA is required to transfer permitting authority to a state if that state meets nine statutory requirements. In the case, Defenders of Wildlife argued that compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, effectively adds a 10th statutory requirement, thus preventing the state of Arizona from having the authority to manage of its own water pollution control program. Section 7(a)(2) requires federal agencies to consult the Department of Commerce or the Department of Interior to assure that a proposed agency action is unlikely to jeopardize an endangered or threatened species.
The Court held that this requirement applies only to discretionary actions by the agencies and because the transfer of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting authority is not discretionary, but rather is mandated once a State has met the criteria set forth in section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act, it follows that a transfer of NPDES permitting authority does not trigger section 7(a)(2)s consultation and no-jeopardy requirements.
The Justices went on to note that, [r]ead broadly, the Ninth Circuits construction would also partially override every federal statute mandating agency action by subjecting such action to the further condition that it not jeopardize listed species.
Todays Supreme Court ruling limiting the scope of the Endangered Species Act is a huge victory for states rights and property owners in America. The Court took a strong stand against judicial activism in overturning a Ninth Circuit Court decision that would have essentially voided a section of the Clean Water Act, Senator Inhofe said.
EXCELLENT!
4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices are over the age of 70. Stevens is 87. The next President will decide the direction of the Court for the next 20 years. There is no issue more important in the 2008 election.
Can we clone Inhofe, Cornyn and Sessions?
The Libs will roll a cadaver into the chambers before they will allow GW to make another nomination.
I would love to clone these guys! I cannot even think of the last time I disagreed with Sen Inhofe and I have NEVER had that happen before.
It would have been better if the court had ruled that the EPA has no constitutional basis to exist.
Doesn’t a Ninth Circuit opinion just get automatically over-ridden on appeal?
Chalk it up as some or the things America has needed and finally got recognized....
Imhofe for President! Hell, Imhofe for Emperor!
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.