Skip to comments.SCOTUS Declines to Hear Environmental Challenge Blocking Construction of Border Wall
Posted on 12/03/2018 4:24:07 PM PST by rustyweiss74
Monday, the Supreme Court said it would not hear a challenge brought by environmental groups against the Trump administration concerning the construction of the border wall. The complaint alleged construction of the border wall would violate environmental laws and threaten endangered species.
In 1996, President Clinton signed a law allowing the the executive branch with authority to waive environmental laws if those laws impede construction of barriers and roads near the border, according to CNBC.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
> In 1996, President Clinton signed a law allowing the the executive branch with authority to waive environmental laws if those laws impede construction of barriers and roads near the border,
Thank you, President... Clinton?
But what about the poor endangered Fanged Carnivorous Desert Tapeworm?
If the Hispanic invasion of the US is not endangering the so called “endangered species”, a damn wall sure isn’t going to endanger anything. The envirowackos need to give the recreational drugs a rest for a while.
Let this ruling be the FIRST of hundreds The Left loses at Scotus in years to come thanks to Trump!
My thoughts, too...
A win for the wall, but I’ve been
against giving control of the Rio
Grade to Mexico. The wall could easily
be built down the middle. Doing so
would make it impossible to tunnel
under, and ladder or rope breech
much more difficult, and wild critters
and livestock would still have access
to the water.
The thing to remember is that in 1996 the Democrats still opposed Illegal immigration, as it hurt union workers. It wasn’t until Bush Jr. opened up the floodgates that the Democrats flipped on the issue.
One of the lawyers for the environmentalists, bewailing the High Court’s decision not to take their case (the same fate as THOUSANDS of other cases each year) ..said that this law violates other laws ...
This law has been on the books for 25 years. Doesn’t that make the existing law allowing the bypassing of environmental impact statements stare decisis, kind of like Roe v. Wade? You know, established law?
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.