The only way I can see to challenge the EPA's powers is to point out their inherent lack of suitability for the charge of abiding by said treaties. Government agencies that derive their funding BECAUSE a species is in trouble are at a structural conflict of interest in restoring sufficient numbers for survival. That is our opening. I've been working for fourteen years to get somebody interested in taking advantage of it. So far, no takers. Hence, I'm in the process of doing it on my own with the faith that G-d will provide the resources when the time comes.
If proving a conflict of interest were truly sufficient to justify the dismantling of a government agency,
inherently, there wouldn’t be any government agencies.
They, by definition (as we have recently seen with the ATF), need to perpetuate the “problem” in order to justify their existance.
Good for you Mark! Godspeed, my friend.
If you go to the Supreme Court link given on the cbs news page, you can listen to the full argument between the Justices and the Attorneys. The process itself is interesting, but in the end, the Justices accept the case.
They recognized the No-win catch 22 imposed upon the people by the EPA. One of the Justices remarked that it’s worse even than they originally thought.
This recognition may not help the Sacketts in the short run, but I think (what it looks like to me) is that the EPA is gong to have to amend their procedures. It wouldn’t surprise me if the EPA continues to try to schtick the $75K/day fines under the old law, but they’ll be forced to remedy their processes which will help others in the future.
Currently, there’s really nothing overseeing or regulating anything they say, or do regarding the environment. They have absolute power.