Supreme Court deal unanimous welcome blow to administrative (trunc)

National Review ^ | 12/2/18 | George Will

[BigEdLB]

Uncertain of rules on NR, but had to post this

[BigEdLB]

John Roberts talking about, “brick conking a gopher”? LOL

[Popman]

George Will...?

I will pass..

[Paladin2]

"This idea is the crux of progressivism’s case for allowing the administrative state to boss us around without judicial review of its bossiness: This state’s agencies say that they possess detailed expertise beyond Congress’s ken, and courts should bow before the agencies’ disinterested wisdom when construing Congress’s legislative instructions, however much the instructions’ ambiguities leave the agencies with vast discretion. Roberts reminded the dusky gopher frog’s friends that courts are commanded by law to “set aside any agency action that is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.'”"

Maybe Roberts is not yet all on the Dark Side.

Good post.

[Still Thinking]

No, it’s actually not a bad article.

[Paladin2]

Some one must have put some speed in George’s morning pudding. He became suddenly sentient here.

[Calvin Cooledge]

Basically, the lower court said that even though the 1500 acres in Louisiana is not at all a habitat that the gopher frog likes, and no gopher frogs have been there in 50 years, it can still be protected.

The Supreme Court said "wrong!". And Chief Justice Roberts said that contrary to lower court ruling, a critical habitat must be habitable.

[Hebrews 11:6]

WEYERHAEUSER CO. v. UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ET AL.

[Paladin2]

"The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. "

Thanks for the link to the "opinion"/ruling. Original sources are what made the 'net great.

[SoFloFreeper]

Atheist and Trump hater George Will pens a worthwhile column. I’m shocked.

[spokeshave2]

And a “wetland” must be accessible and navigational by a Coast Guard vessel.

[Manly Warrior]

You must be thinking “navigable waters” not wetlands?

[Sa-teef]

Yes, a good read.
I typically despise the man but he did well with this one. I guess John Robert’s sarcasm in the opinion fit the writer?

[sphinx]

Essentially, the Fish and Wildlife Service tried to reach out and seize 1,500 acres of private land on a thoroughly specious pretext. FWS got slapped down, and properly so. But my question is, what is the underlying story? Why did FWS want this land, or at least effective control over this land, to begin with? I wonder if there's a hidden agenda, or if there's a local activist group with a burr under its saddle.

If this 1,500 acres is so all-fired important -- which, per the story, seems clearly not to be the case -- the straightforward course of action would be for FWS to attempt to buy it, or do a land swap. Perhaps FWS was just being lazy and didn't want to go to Congress for the money. But this action is so arbitrary -- reach out and grab 1,500 acres on which the frog hasn't lived in 50 years -- that I wonder if something else underlies the action.

[Hebrews 11:6]

Superbly reasoned and stated. Surely there is a backstory. I’m sure Weyerhaeuser knows.

[BigEdLB]

Amazing, is’nt it?

[TXnMA]

"You must be thinking “navigable waters” not wetlands?"

Correct.

In fact, in some jurisdictions, "wetlands" need not necessarily contain water. The mere presence of various species of "wetlands vegetation" suffices to classify land as a "wetland"...

TXnMA
 

[TXnMA]

"You must be thinking “navigable waters” not wetlands?"

Correct.

In fact, in some jurisdictions, "wetlands" need not necessarily contain water. The mere presence of various species of "wetlands vegetation" suffices to classify land as a "wetland"...

TXnMA