Posted on 01/09/2012 10:26:29 AM PST by WilliamIII
WASHINGTON — Several Supreme Court justices are criticizing the Environmental Protection Agency for heavy-handed enforcement of rules affecting homeowners.
The justices were considering whether to let a North Idaho couple challenge an EPA order identifying their land as “protected wetlands.” Mike and Chantell Sackett of Priest Lake wanted to build their house on the land. But the EPA says the Sacketts can’t challenge the order to restore the land to wetlands or face thousands of dollars in fines.
Justice Samuel Alito called EPA’s actions “outrageous.” Justice Antonin Scalia noted the “high-handedness of the agency” in dealing with private property. Chief Justice John Roberts said that the EPA’s contention that the Sacketts’ land is wetlands, something the couple disagrees with, would never be put to a test under current procedure.
The Sacketts were filling in a lot near Priest Lake in 2007 to construct a house when EPA officials shut down the project, saying the couple had filled in wetlands without getting a permit.
(Excerpt) Read more at spokesman.com ...
For those who might read this who don't typically read SC oral arguments, you might want to keep in mind that you really can't tell how a given justice will vote based on the questions asked.
Oh, I certainly get that aspect -- I'm just trying to figure what made these yahoos even become aware that this half acre in north Idaho even existed. This falls well below the normal resolution of their radar.
Sotomayor and Kagan are left wing activists who were lucky enough to get put on the Supreme Court where they can work their mischief for the next 30 years. There is no case so egregious she won’t vote for it. The Constitution is a living document that needs tweaking from time to time as far as they are concerned. I just pray to God that Ginsberg lives at least 1 hour past Newt’s inaugeration so he can put another Thomas or Scalia on the bench.
Then sent him the wrong court date so they could convict him in absentia, then sent a US Marshal's SWAT team in to provoke a gunfight so they could send in the FBI Hostage Rescue Team to kill the gentleman and his family.
Nolan lit a shuck out of New Mexico again. and is on his way.
Exactly. Our ancestors would have put these jackasses in chains, as would the founding fathers.
I completely agree with you, fire and forget.
In a nation with more guns than people, a population FED UP with abuses of the Constitution (many of them veterans sworn to “support and defend” it), and a clearly ineligible usurper in the White House ... I could easily go on ... it is indeed shocking that nobody has gone postal yet.
All it would take is a couple of guys meeting for a beer after a day at the target range, attract a few like-minded friends as word spreads, and we could easily have a genuine rebellion on our hands.
But I just as equally agree that Obummer DREAMS about us “bitter clingers” starting an armed insurrection. Then he could declare a national emergency, suspend both the election and the Constitution, lock up lots of people without trial, shut down the Internet (and the phones too, why not?) and we would quickly see our first American Emperor.
Infuriating is too mild a word ... and the pressure builds.
Yes, because this is their third Strike. First there was SWANCC v. Army Corp of Engineers where the EPA's migratory waterfowl definition was upended.
Second there was Rapanos v. Army Corp where they were slapped by Scalia about the "waters of the United States"
Now in this case, they attempt an end around the federal courts with their rule making. It is not wise to argue that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction, or the defendants in a federal action do not have standing .
Three strikes and you're out.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, which also filed briefs in the case, has called it a corporate-backed effort to weaken regulations of the Clean Water Act.
I pulled the quote as a reminder, to myself, that if allowed to implement their Utopia, many Leftists would happily march every Freeper off to labor camps.
So yes, some government thug will end up wishing he hadn't eaten the radical environmental fruit and the blame will be placed on the poor schlub exercising his property rights.
At least the US Constitution explicitly protects property rights, so it’s much harder for the Supreme Court to completely ignore the issue. The Canadian Constitution has no property protection so it’s open season on property rights. Our governments can expropriate and impose land use restrictions with impunity.
The same Newt who sits on the global warming couch with Pelosi? Yeah, I’ll bet he comes down real hard on the EPA if he gets into office. /s
I’ve thought of that. Like all liberals they say they are doing it for the planet, earth, environment, etc. However, in reality that are doing it for their nice government salary.
I say tell them if you truly believe that what you are doing is a worth wile cause, they you will have no problem making sacrifices and doing whatever it is you do for $1/year.
I believe this was her quote: ¿Qué es la propiedad privada?
“It would be nice to see SCOTUS take the case, rule against the EPA and hold the person who chose to make the decision personally responsible for any expenses this couple became saddled with in order to protect their property.”
I doubt very seriously if anyone will be held personally
accountable. The question is whether the EPA will abide
to the SCOTUS ruling. With the in session recess appointments
going on, I wouldn’t put it past the regime to tell the
SCOTUS to go spoon a goose.
One more Thomas if you please. Old Anthony cannot always be counted on to produce more liberty.
“Rats will gnaw their leg off to escape a trap; wounded deer will attack you; what makes anyone think that the animal in all of us will react any differently?”
“When People Lose Everything, They Have Nothing Left To Lose, And They Lose It”.. Gerald Celente
Something tells me that that is what this regime wants. A
good excuse to suspend the constitution and elections and
bring in full marshal law. Remember, all laws are ultimatly
enforced with the point of a gun. You will comply or die.
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.