Posted on 09/05/2015 9:47:56 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
A federal judge on Friday declined to halt the Obama administration's controversial water rule nationwide, rebuffing the request of 13 states that are battling with the Environmental Protection Agency.
Judge Ralph Erickson of the North Dakota U.S. District Court ruled that there are “significant prudential reasons to limit the scope” of the injunction he already gave the 13 states last week. Other courts have denied injunctions, he said, and some states want to implement the “Waters of the United States” rule.
“On the one hand, there is a desirability for uniformity regarding a national rule with national application,” Erickson wrote. “On the other hand, there is the idea of respecting the decisions of other courts and other sovereign states.”
Erickson issued an injunction last Thursday blocking a sweeping new EPA rule in 13 states. At the time, he argued the states met the conditions necessary for an injunction, including concerns the rule would harm them and their chances of winning an underlying lawsuit against the regulations later on.
After the decision, the EPA said it would continue to implement the rule in every state except those that won the injunction. This week, those states, led by North Dakota, asked the judge to extend his injunction nationwide.
The states argued that the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers “have repeatedly asserted that uniform applicability, consistency, and predictability were driving forces in the need for and development of the rule,” and that consistency should apply to the injunction against it, as well.
But Erickson wrote Friday that “because there are competing sovereign interests and competing judicial rulings, the court declines to extend the preliminary injunction at issue beyond the entities actually before it.”
States and industry groups have argued the rule is an unjust expansion of the federal government’s jurisdiction over water pollution.
The EPA and Obama administration have said the rule is legal and called it a necessary step in protecting water around the country.
PING!
Jerks that think my puddle is EPA regulated will still be shot.
Hokay. The Fed courts will tailor a solution for this, looking at what the states want, but will just shove gay pseudomarriage down everyone’s throat.
Such Solomons they are.
And just where are Boner and Ditch?
These so called “judges” are starting to become a real pain in the ass. They all think that they are some kind of freaky little god. Americans need to start booting them off the bench. One at a time if need be. They are destroying America.
I’m waiting for my area to get a sewer system. Meanwhile my grey water is being routed to French drains. Probably when the sewer system arrives the EPA will declare my drains a watershed area and not allow me to hook them up to the sewer.
The 13 states are:
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico,
North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming
This used to be a job for the Senate.
Your handle says exactly why we are in this position.
Thank you for referencing that article Tolerance Sucks Rocks. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.
As mentioned in related threads, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate water. And even if the states had delegated such power the feds, note that the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Section 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide them from Congress, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches, or in non-elected bureaucrats like those running the constitutionally undefined EPA.
And by delegating federal legislative powers to non-elected government bureaucrats, powers that the states have never delegated to the feds in this example, Congress is wrongly protecting such power from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of Sections 1-3 mentioned above imo.
The reason that the EPA exists, imo, is because the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Senate failed to protect the states as the Founding States had established the Senate to do. In this case the Senate failed to kill bills which helped to provide the EPA with regulatory power and funding, again, the states never delegating to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for the purpose of managing INTRAstate water resources.
In fact, by helping to establish the EPA, the Senate ignored the requirement of the Constitution’s Article V to lead Congress to first successfully petition the states for an intrastate water management amendment to the Constitution.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt Senators, lawless presidents, Constitution-ignoring EPA bureaucrats and misguided federal judges who support the EPA along with it imo.
The judge has a name.
The judge has an address.
Make him regret it.
Folks, this is really war. Either make the SOBs regret their liberalism or sit back and be shat upon.
Scumbag robe wearing obama, along with his head of the EPA, the lesbian Gina McCarthy, devised this new rule (scheme). As I understand it, this new rule takes away the states power to regulate their own intrastate waterways. Obama should be impeached.
Equal protection clause is only for blacks and gays not guns or water, silly. The feds will control the waters because of the penumbras and emanations of the constitution say so.
“These so called “judges” are starting to become a real pain in the ass. They all think that they are some kind of freaky little god. Americans need to start booting them off the bench. One at a time if need be. They are destroying America.”
Did you even read the excerpted part above?
What it says is that the judge enjoined the Federal EPA from enforcing the rules in question in the 13 states that had filed suit. He then pointed out that it was not his role to usurp other courts across the county. This is not judicial activism as you see it. It is a judge ruling only on the matter before him and not trying to go beyond his judicial authority.
If you lack reading comprehension, I would suggest you and others like you refrain from polluting these threads.
But according to liberal pundit Jonathan Adler, the federal government cannot force the states to enforce its laws, which is why (so he claimed) that sanctuary cities are ok, but denying wedding licenses to gays, isn’t. What a lying POS.
Which only proves my point that he probably read no more than the headline and first paragraph and made a completely erroneous assumptions about what transpired. And he was not the only one who spouted off about the wrong issue on this thread.
But this is not limited to just this thread. A lot of crap on Free Republic is people who spout off on articles that report exactly the opposite of what they are saying. They see three words and just pile on. It degrades the power of Free Republic.
Well, if the articles are printed verbatim, with the title unaltered, per FR policy, can you entirely blame them?
“Well, if the articles are printed verbatim, with the title unaltered, per FR policy, can you entirely blame them?”
Yes, becasue I have yet to see an article printed verbatuim which gave completely wrong information. This was clearly a case of seeing Judge injuntion and water rules and making assumptions that this was a case of judical activism.
There was another thread which was about a LaRaza lawsuit. The article was about the 9th circuit reversing the dismissal of the case. Idiots came out of the woodwork claiming it was end of America, when all the case was about was letting the case proceed to trial. The merits of the case were no even at issue. Furthermore, people were piling on about California when the case was totally about the state of Nevada which was noted in the article on the first post.
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.