Supreme Court rules 9-0 against EPA over wetlands

Page 2 of 2  


But at least now they _can_ have their day in court, before it was "I sadd it ws wet" that ends it.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<<But at least now they _can_ have their day in court, before it was "I sadd it ws wet" that ends it.>>
Agreed. But the case was merely a correction to a badly written law (hence the unanimity - they have no qualms about bashing Congress - they are slightly more reluctant to overrule their predecessors). Some people were hoping for a much more powerful ruling, as in the Feds have no inherent right to protect wetlands or whatever they *decide* is a wetland on a Constitutional basis.
With the hideously crowded court dockets the recession has created, I really don't see much change. The horrendous fines reporters are writing about almost always accrue on paper only. Judges routinely stop the fine clock from the day a suit is filed unless the ligitant does something to really piss them off. From what I've read, the long times to trial are a strategy aimed at encouraging abatement before litigation.
Anyone familiar with disaster caused by hog waste pens (they call them lagoons) being overrun in North Carolina's hurricane Floyd knows that the EPA, as pesky as it might seem, actually does good work. At the very least they serve as an "institutional memory" for disasters like the NC hog lagoon releases. Agricultural stormwater discharges and irrigation return flows were specifically exempted from permit requirements of the Clean Water Act and now those sorts of discharges represent some of the worst and costliest water pollution events in the nation. That was rather a predictable outcome.
Pigs generate an enormous amount of manure that sits around in lagoons, stinking to high heaven but eventually decomposing. North Carolina faced enormous water cleanup costs after Floyd from all the pig crap that got into the drinking water when the lagoons overflowed with storm water. Walled enclosures and even better lagoon siting rules could have and should have prevented that disaster. But the EPA can't regulate those sorts of situations, to the best of my knowledge, although they're moving in that direction now that it's clear how much a cleanup of such a disaster costs. Now that states are going broke they don't want to get stuck with costs of such cleanups when the proper solution resides with the hog farmers.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

they don't seem to have had one (and for sure don't now - not needed). That case drug on fr several years until it got to the Supremes who pointed out clearly that becasue a beurocrat says something, that ain't good enough.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<stuff snipped>

<<they don't seem to have had one (and for sure don't now - not needed). That case drug on fr several years until it got to the Supremes who pointed out clearly that becasue a beurocrat says something, that ain't good enough.>>
Harry, I admire the fact that you believe people will get a better outcome from a judicial trial. However, my sister's a judge and I can assure you, she can do bureaucracy like nobody's business. The problem is often expressed as "they wouldn't arrest him if he wasn't guilty." Judges often side with the government that also signs their paychecks. It's a pretty common human failing.
The changes required to the EPA's "reach" have to come at the statutory level. At forty plus years of age, the EPA is about due for a top-to-bottom effectiveness review. I don't favor eliminating them because they have made tremendous strides in cleaning our air and water. I think we're both old enough to remember rivers catching fire from industrial pollution. That said, I do favor making sure they haven't overflowed their banks and gotten into areas they shouldn't be in.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You must have missed my post where I said my bet is that they will (the plaintiffs) will loose eventually.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

<<You must have missed my post where I said my bet is that they will (the plaintiffs) will loose eventually.>>
Yep, I missed it. Sorry. I guess we agree it's not as big a leap as it should be. I'm not even sure the EPA should have any authority over private citizens and their homesteads. Most massive pollution is caused by corporate entities.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green wrote:

As an aside, Alan Dershowitz posited the following rules:
1. Virtually every criminal defendant is guilty. 2. Rule #1 is known to the judge, the district attorney, and defense counsel. 3. Few criminal defendants can be convicted without violating one or more of their Constitutional rights. 4. Rule #3 is known to the judge, the district attorney, and defense counsel. 5. Defendants are often convicted, not for what they did, but for what can be proved. Much of the time what they did cannot be proved and what was proved was not what they did. 6. Rule #5 is known to the judge, the district attorney, and defense counsel.
Studying the above rules will demonstrate why almost everyone in prison feels they are there on a bum rap.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ya forgot the mosst important one.
Trials are nt about "justice" it is only about who wins or loses the case.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.