Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Couple Brutalized by Rogue EPA
Fox News Channel ^ | 3/21/12

Posted on 03/21/2012 8:16:17 AM PDT by pabianice

Now on Fox. SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the couple that bought a house lot and was then fined $ 175,000/day by the loathsome EPA for "disturbing a wetland" that does not exist. Will be fascinating to see if any of the Rancid Media even report this.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Idaho
KEYWORDS: epa; globalwarming; govtabuse; scotus; tyranny; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 next last

1 posted on 03/21/2012 8:16:23 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Finally - a defense of property rights!


2 posted on 03/21/2012 8:18:15 AM PDT by Ken522
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

YEAH!


3 posted on 03/21/2012 8:19:18 AM PDT by Cricket24 (NO MORE RINO'S....That means you Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Will be fascinating to see if any of the Rancid Media even report this.

You know they won’t!


4 posted on 03/21/2012 8:20:29 AM PDT by CPT Clay (Pick up your weapon and follow me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

5-4? 6-3? 7-2? 8-1? 9-0?


5 posted on 03/21/2012 8:22:16 AM PDT by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

Not yet known.


6 posted on 03/21/2012 8:23:05 AM PDT by pabianice (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

From Fox News website:

ON – The Supreme Court has unanimously sided with Idaho property owners whose plans to build a home were blocked by an Environmental Protection Agency order declaring the property contained wetlands.

In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court says Wednesday that the EPA cannot threaten fines of more than $30,000 a day without giving property owners the ability to challenge its actions.

The decision is a victory for Mike and Chantell Sackett, whose property near a scenic lake has sat undisturbed since the EPA ordered a halt in work in 2007. The agency said part of the property was a wetlands that cannot be disturbed without a permit.

The couple complained there was no reasonable way to challenge the order.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/21/supreme-court-sides-with-idaho-property-owners-over-epa/#ixzz1plUWfCxh


7 posted on 03/21/2012 8:24:51 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (May Mitt Romney be the Paul Tsongas of 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
As I understand the landowners are near bankrupt to win a decision that they can challenge the EPA in court. The EPA held that their decision was “administrative” and the couple had no right to question it. They still have to go to court on the issues.

If that is the case, some victory.

8 posted on 03/21/2012 8:25:00 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Ruling was UNANIMOUS on Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency! I’d love to be in the White House now to hear Obama;s screaming tirade...


9 posted on 03/21/2012 8:25:21 AM PDT by pabianice (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

5-4... bank on it. Scary that our liberties are increasingly depnendent on the continuing health of five justices.


10 posted on 03/21/2012 8:25:32 AM PDT by Common Sense 101 (Hey libs... If your theories fly in the face of reality, it's not reality that's wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Here is the opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf


11 posted on 03/21/2012 8:25:32 AM PDT by First A Patriot (Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

Rush will cover it.


12 posted on 03/21/2012 8:25:44 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Beware the Sweater Vest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

5-4... bank on it. Scary that our liberties are increasingly dependent on the continuing health of five justices.


13 posted on 03/21/2012 8:25:48 AM PDT by Common Sense 101 (Hey libs... If your theories fly in the face of reality, it's not reality that's wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has sided with an Idaho couple in a property rights case, ruling they can go to court to challenge an Environmental Protection Agency order that blocked construction of their new home and threatened fines of more than $30,000 a day.

Wednesday’s decision is a victory for Mike and Chantell Sackett, whose property near a scenic lake has sat undisturbed since the EPA ordered a halt in work in 2007. The agency said part of the property was a wetlands that could not disturbed without a permit.

In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court rejected EPA’s argument that allowing property owners quick access to courts to contest orders like the one issued to the Sacketts would compromise the agency’s ability to deal with water pollution.

“Compliance orders will remain an effective means of securing prompt voluntary compliance in those many cases where there is no substantial basis to question their validity,” Scalia said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iSRDBI3PCqSJSa57oGLg3QpRSGaQ?docId=644e764ff3ae424d99db96bd92d1147f


14 posted on 03/21/2012 8:25:48 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

5-4... bank on it. Scary that our liberties are increasingly dependent on the continuing health of five justices.


15 posted on 03/21/2012 8:25:48 AM PDT by Common Sense 101 (Hey libs... If your theories fly in the face of reality, it's not reality that's wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JediJones; pabianice
5-4? 6-3? 7-2? 8-1? 9-0?

9-0! Scalia!
16 posted on 03/21/2012 8:26:16 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (May Mitt Romney be the Paul Tsongas of 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Looks like all they won was the right to sue, not an actual case on the substance yet.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/usa-court-epa-idUSL2E8CVIHY20120321


17 posted on 03/21/2012 8:26:49 AM PDT by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

It was unanimous at the Supreme Court?

So even a wise Latina and the ACLU representative to the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, agree that the EPA is out of control here.

Well, this is a smackdown to Obama isn’t it?


18 posted on 03/21/2012 8:27:16 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

9-0, unanimous


19 posted on 03/21/2012 8:28:15 AM PDT by CedarDave (A liberal, moderate and conservative walk into a restaurant. Waiter says "Hi Mitt")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
If I remember the particulars of this case...

These folks bought a plot of land and started to build their house when they noticed a drainage ditch was clogged and water was backing up. The got permission from the state to clean out the ditch. The EPA then charged then with a FELONY for disturbing a "wetland" (the water backed up from the clogged ditch). The jury found them not guilty. But not to be undone, the EPA said they were going to fine them some huge amount until the "wetland" was restored.

Unfortunately, I don't believe this victory in the Supreme Court is the end of it. They were fighting for the right to challenge the EPA fines in court. They've only won the right to challenge, but they would still have to win that courtcase. So it isn't over (unless the EPA drops everything for fear of losing or bad publicity).

20 posted on 03/21/2012 8:28:20 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

” They still have to go to court on the issues.
If that is the case, some victory. “

And, if memory serves, the Court that will get to decide ‘on the issues’ will be our old friend, the 9th Circus....


21 posted on 03/21/2012 8:28:54 AM PDT by Uncle Ike (Rope is cheap, and there are lots of trees...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Common Sense 101

The decision was unanimous!


22 posted on 03/21/2012 8:29:19 AM PDT by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

9-0? I will admit... I would not have seen this turning out that way.


23 posted on 03/21/2012 8:31:04 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Steampunk- Yesterday's Tomorrow, Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Wow, this was unanimous.

Maybe this can help pave the way for more lawsuits against the EPA. For example, we’re hearing that the EPA is shutting down coal fired power plants because they don’t meet certain pollution standards. These standards were set by Obama’s EPA, without Congress being involved, just because he has his liberals running things. Perhaps this out of control EPA can be reined in, since we see here that the courts are willing to rule against some half baked administrative regulations.


24 posted on 03/21/2012 8:32:04 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

“the court says Wednesday that the EPA cannot threaten fines of more than $30,000 a day without giving property owners the ability to challenge its actions.”

Um....Why is $30K the magic number? It’s just as devastating as $175K to the average person.


25 posted on 03/21/2012 8:32:10 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (Burning the Quran is a waste of perfectly good fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apillar
The jury found them not guilty

At one point in our country's history, that would have ended it.

Now we are all vassals of an imperial central government. When will the states wise up?

26 posted on 03/21/2012 8:32:22 AM PDT by Leaning Right (Why am I carrying this lantern? you ask. I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: apillar

Yep. This family was on Stossel the other night. They had won their criminal case in court, but the EPA launched a civil action and tarted fining them $175,000 a day! This poor woman was in tears on Stossel. My blood was boiling! This is tyranny!


27 posted on 03/21/2012 8:33:02 AM PDT by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: KansasGirl

I stand corrected... somewhat. As previously stated, “Looks like all they won was the right to sue, not an actual decision against the EPA.” Wait until they come back around and it means something...


28 posted on 03/21/2012 8:33:02 AM PDT by Common Sense 101 (Hey libs... If your theories fly in the face of reality, it's not reality that's wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Ike
There's the "Madrona Swamp" case ~ 9th Circuit knows about that one ~ so does the Supreme Court.

The people in this case will win.

29 posted on 03/21/2012 8:33:38 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Ninth Circus overruled AGAIN


30 posted on 03/21/2012 8:34:44 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Limbaugh: Tim Tebow miracle: "He had atheists praying to God that he would lose.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Perhaps there is yet hope....


31 posted on 03/21/2012 8:35:32 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

I hope the EPA has to pay their legal expenses for a frivolous prosecution.


32 posted on 03/21/2012 8:35:47 AM PDT by Joe the Pimpernel (Islam is a religion of peace, and Moslems reserve the right to slaughter anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny
Um....Why is $30K the magic number? It’s just as devastating as $175K to the average person.

Yeah, that's the first thing I wondered, too. Scalia says the EPA shouldn't levy fines of over $30,000 per day?

Some "victory".

33 posted on 03/21/2012 8:36:17 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Lisa Jackson, not at all deterred, was seen stirring a boiling cauldron while muttering, “I'll get you, my pretty.”
34 posted on 03/21/2012 8:37:06 AM PDT by JPG (Hold on tight; rough road ahead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Sense 101

This is a good reason that we need a new President. If he gets reelected, he will appoint more liberal judges and the decision would have been 9-0 against the people.


35 posted on 03/21/2012 8:37:30 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny

By the way, I wonder how the court would have ruled if the EPA fines were “only”, say, $25,000 per day?
Different outcome? Yikes.


36 posted on 03/21/2012 8:38:18 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Joe the Pimpernel

I don’t think the EPA does, that’s the problem. Just defending yourself will bankrupt you. This is tyranny.


37 posted on 03/21/2012 8:38:43 AM PDT by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

GOOD NEWS!!


38 posted on 03/21/2012 8:38:43 AM PDT by Texas56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
As I understand the landowners are near bankrupt to win a decision that they can challenge the EPA in court. The EPA held that their decision was “administrative” and the couple had no right to question it. They still have to go to court on the issues.

Exactly.

And now they have won Round One the EPA will use Round Two to complete the destruction and bankruptcy.


39 posted on 03/21/2012 8:40:14 AM PDT by Iron Munro (If Repubs paid as much attention to Rush as the Dem's do, we wouldn't be in this mess)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
The EPA held that their decision was “administrative” and the couple had no right to question it.

The obvious response from Congress ought to be to reduce the EPA's annual budget to $1.00.

40 posted on 03/21/2012 8:40:49 AM PDT by Standing Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Justice Scalia accesses his inner Steyn
Today we consider only whether the dispute may be brought to court by challenging the compliance order—we do not resolve the dispute on the merits. The reader will be curious, however, to know what all the fuss is about.

41 posted on 03/21/2012 8:40:58 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Limbaugh: Tim Tebow miracle: "He had atheists praying to God that he would lose.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

This was on Stossel last weekend. The first time the courts found in their favor the Corps of Engineers backed by the EPA says thats nice but you’re in violation. Lets see if the EPA tries to downplay the SCOTUS decision.


42 posted on 03/21/2012 8:41:05 AM PDT by Harley (Will Rogers never met Harry Reid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
No one should hold their breath in anticipation that Congress will do anything to curb a totalitarian federal agency. Why make yourself a target of the enviros? Risk your comfortable congressional seat just because the EPA ruined the lives of Obama’s subjects?

As you said, this is probably no victory at all.

43 posted on 03/21/2012 8:41:53 AM PDT by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

prevailing party costs and legal fees would apply.


44 posted on 03/21/2012 8:43:19 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Common Sense 101
"Capricious" agency gets lightly slapped.

"And there is no reason to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into “voluntary compliance” without the opportunity for judicial review—even judicial review of the question whether the regulated party is within the EPA’sjurisdiction. Compliance orders will remain an effective means of securing prompt voluntary compliance in those many cases where there is no substantial basis to question their validity".

45 posted on 03/21/2012 8:45:11 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

If the media would do it’s job and report stuff like this, public outrage may rein the EPA in. The liberal media doesn’t care about this family. More hypocrisy on the media’s part!


46 posted on 03/21/2012 8:47:14 AM PDT by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: KansasGirl

I figured as much.


47 posted on 03/21/2012 8:48:45 AM PDT by Joe the Pimpernel (Islam is a religion of peace, and Moslems reserve the right to slaughter anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
The Supreme Court has unanimously sided with Idaho property owners

Wow! I wonder if Ginsburg is aware somebody wrote an opinion for her and voted against the EPA?

48 posted on 03/21/2012 8:49:29 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Democrats love direct democracy until it's time to vote on something. Then they scream for a judge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; Jacquerie
prevailing party costs and legal fees would apply.

Is that true in a SCOTUS case? I don't know. Maybe Jacquerie knows or you do.

49 posted on 03/21/2012 8:49:29 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana; StarFan; Dutchy; alisasny; BobFromNJ; BUNNY2003; Cacique; Clemenza; Coleus; cyborg; ...
From Fox News website:

ON – The Supreme Court has unanimously sided with Idaho property owners whose plans to build a home were blocked by an Environmental Protection Agency order declaring the property contained wetlands.

In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court says Wednesday that the EPA cannot threaten fines of more than $30,000 a day without giving property owners the ability to challenge its actions.

The decision is a victory for Mike and Chantell Sackett, whose property near a scenic lake has sat undisturbed since the EPA ordered a halt in work in 2007. The agency said part of the property was a wetlands that cannot be disturbed without a permit.

The couple complained there was no reasonable way to challenge the order.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/21/supreme-court-sides-with-idaho-property-owners-over-epa/#ixzz1plUWfCxh

Thank you for the above information, Dr. Sivana (post #7)

Here's the SCOTUS opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf

50 posted on 03/21/2012 8:50:08 AM PDT by nutmeg (Rest in Peace, and THANK YOU, Andrew Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson