Agree, 100%. And if our wetlands disappear, what happens to the wildlife that lives there? This, coupled with climate change, is incredibly frightening to me.
I saw that 900 different species live in wetlands all over the country. While we might want to propose that states take over regulating our wetlands, it turns out that about half of the stats have laws on the books stating that they cannot impose stricter regulations than the EPA, so when the Court destroys the federal government's regulations, they are also effective preventing the states from taking over. I keep wondering if any of the Justices have children or grandchildren and why they're not concerned about the planet subsequent generations will be inheriting.
They're willing to destroy the world we all live in/on. The delusion is that their money can buy them exemption from reality. Good luck with that.
I heard this reported on NPR yesterday, while driving. My first thought wasn't Houston, but Southern Louisiana and Katrina. People are having to be relocated because the very land they've lived on for generations is being inudated. But then, they're poor people, mostly, so who cares, right, Alito?
The destruction of the planet is also connected to a specific Evangelical/ Dominionist ideology. They believe that only once the planet is in ruins, Jesus can return. Thousands of Christian officials in all levels of government believe this. This brand of policymaking has been going on at least since Caspar Weinberger, who believed protecting the environment didn't matter, because the rapture was upon us. It's complete mental illness. If there was one test for office, it should be that Armageddonists cannot hold office.
I think you are right, Holly. I wish I could wave a wand to remove the delusion of supremacy from human beings. Until we recognize that we are simply a part of nature and respect it, we are doomed.
I once asked one of these "Armageddonists" how they would know the real Jesus when He comes to Earth again. "Well," he said, "I'll know it's the real Jesus when he confirms His Message in the Bible." "What if He wants to give you a new Message? What if He says something like, 'Now for Chapter 2 of the New Testament!'?" "Then I'll know it's a false Christ and we'll have to kill him" (The fact that we were conversing in the pitch darkness of a Cub Scout cavern campout trip late at night in NW Georgia made it even creepier.)
It's sad -- even Jesus Himself can't tell them anything new.
Wow. This about Christian officials is new to me. It does make sense that something had to be behind it besides just ... what? Religious fervor, in my opinion, is emotionally damaged people looking for black-and-white answers, and it puts too many of them in the position of continually being manipulated.
"... specific Evangelical/ Dominionist ideology." Spot on Holly; They represent a solid third of the coalition behind the far right (wrong) wing extremists.
Pouring dirt on your lot to level it out before you build is destroying the planet? There lot was near ditch, that was near creek, which was near a lake.
The sanctimonious lecturing is unbelievable.
BTW the court ruled 9-0 in favor of the Sacketts. I'll bet you didn't know that before you virtued signaled about the planet.
By 5-4 the Majority asked Congress to tighten their language on the term wet lands to lessen litigation.
The case was about an Idaho couple s Michael and Chantell Sackett who purchased property near
Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare
for building a home. The Environmental Protection Agency informed
the Sacketts that their property contained wetlands and that their
backfilling violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharging
pollutants into “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(7).
The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day. The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not “waters of the United States.”
AGAIN the Sackets poured DIRT near a ditch, which was near a creek, which was near lake.
ONLY A MORON or Climate activist would would believe this is damaging the enviroment or that it violated the CLEAN WATERS ACT.
The Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the Sacket's
As a separate question the Court disagreed over the language of what constitutes wetlands. By a 5-4 margin the Majority argued the definition language was causing litigation and that Congress needed to tighten up the language.
IT IS A DISGRACFUL that the Supreme Court is accused gutting the EPA, or harming the environment.
It took me 5 minutes of research to see this who post was a LIE. It speaks to the LAZINESS and DISHONESTY of Heather and her acolytes that they did no homework.
Katrina was bad and really hard on lower income folks. I was part of a church group that made three 1 week repair efforts. Because I was qualified I did mostly rewiring of homes. In many cases the original wiring was terrible but we could fix that what was harder was helping the people deal with the hell they had gone through. About half of our group just spent time with folks listening to what they had been through.
Having spent more that 30 years working in heavy industry dealing with the EPA and OHSA wasn't always easy but both are critical to our personal and collective future.
The Supreme Court must be fixed. Not easy but we the people have to get this done starting now for the 2024 election.
Hopefully, fixing the Supreme Court is next on the Biden agenda. Soon as we get past this debt ceiling debacle. I think Joe Biden will be remembered as the best US President in American history!
That was my first thought too along with the destruction of mangrove swamps in other places. Poor people, why should the wealthy and their minions in government even give them a thought.
The case was about an Idaho couple s Michael and Chantell Sackett who purchased property near
Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare
for building a home. The Environmental Protection Agency informed
the Sacketts that their property contained wetlands and that their
backfilling violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharging
pollutants into “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(7).
The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day. The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not “waters of the United States.”
AGAIN the Sackets poured DIRT near a ditch, which was near a creek, which was near lake.
ONLY A MORON or Climate activist would would believe this is damaging the enviroment or that it violated the CLEAN WATERS ACT.
The Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the Sacket's
As a separate question the Court disagreed over the language of what constitutes wetlands. By a 5-4 margin the Majority argued the definition language was causing litigation and that Congress needed to tighten up the language.
IT IS A DISGRACFUL that the Supreme Court is accused of gutting the EPA, or harming the environment.
It took me 5 minutes of research to see this who post was a LIE. It speaks to the LAZINESS and DISHONESTY of Heather and her acolytes that they did no homework.
Sandra, I lived there, watching oil barges destroy the wetlands and the shrimp and oysters of those who had made their living supplying them and eating them for two centuries (and maybe longer). I knew a Corps of Engineers guy whose life was destroyed by his love of his state and his inability to bear what was happening to its core.
Thank you, Virginia. I left Florida for much the same reason. Total enactment of Joni Mitchell's Big Yellow Taxi (aka: They Paved Paradise and Put Up a Parking Lot)
Indeed. And subsidize their flood insurance. North Carolina's coast is a good example. They're beginning to question allowing people to build right up to the water's edge (Rodanthe)!! At least two houses have disappeared into the drink so far this year. Barrier islands are, almost by definition, impermanent.
I am remembering that many of those living in Southern LA were living in lowlands that had to be reclaimed as marsh to restore the natural ecology. it is my understanding that they should not be returning to lands that they lived on even for generations, lands that need to be restored as marsh to absorb the waters coming downstream. Correct me if you please. The same is true on the others coasts as we get into more climate change.
This ruling was made for, and by, corporations. It is the essence of fascism. I am sure, even without doing the research, that the people who destroyed these wetlands in Idaho weren’t just building a porch. They also probably don’t vote for the Democratic Party. (fixed)
Of course they will and they will want government help. Water already is a problem in the West and it's only going to get worse. We are lucky here in Oregon that we got a good snow pack this year. There have been years when we haven't.
I sure you didn't bother to read the opinion? Its embarrassing how many people on this site didn't do their homework.
Let's stop lying about the POST
DID YOU READ THE RULING? Of course not.
It was a 9-0 ruling on the merits.
The case was about an Idaho couple s Michael and Chantell Sackett who purchased property near
Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare
for building a home. The Environmental Protection Agency informed
the Sacketts that their property contained wetlands and that their
backfilling violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharging
pollutants into “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(7).
The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day. The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not “waters of the United States.”
AGAIN the Sackets poured DIRT near a ditch, which was near a creek, which was near lake.
ONLY A MORON or Climate activist would would believe this is damaging the enviroment or that it violated the CLEAN WATERS ACT.
The Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the Sacket's
As a separate question the Court disagreed over the language of what constitutes wetlands. By a 5-4 margin the Majority argued the definition language was causing litigation and that Congress needed to tighten up the language.
IT IS A DISGRACFUL that the Supreme Court is accused of gutting the EPA, or harming the environment.
It took me 5 minutes of research to see this who post was a LIE. It speaks to the LAZINESS and DISHONESTY of Heather and her acolytes that they did no homework.
Fascism? That's when the FBI lies to America about Trump collusion when it was the narrative was bankrolled by The Clinton Campaign or when the CIA/FBI lie about The Hunter Biden laptop. That's fascism.
Its also fascism when you blatantly lie about THE SUPREME COURT ruling.
Did you think NO ONE would check? Even read the opinion?
Let's stop lying about the POST
DID YOU READ THE RULING? Of course not.
It was a 9-0 ruling on the merits.
The case was about an Idaho couple s Michael and Chantell Sackett who purchased property near
Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare
for building a home. The Environmental Protection Agency informed
the Sacketts that their property contained wetlands and that their
backfilling violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharging
pollutants into “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(7).
The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day. The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not “waters of the United States.”
AGAIN the Sackets poured DIRT near a ditch, which was near a creek, which was near lake.
ONLY A MORON or Climate activist would would believe this is damaging the environment or that it violated the CLEAN WATERS ACT.
The Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the Sacket's
As a separate question the Court disagreed over the language of what constitutes wetlands. By a 5-4 margin the Majority argued the definition language was causing litigation and that Congress needed to tighten up the language.
IT IS A DISGRACFUL that the Supreme Court is accused of gutting the EPA, or harming the environment.
It took me 5 minutes of research to see this who post was a LIE. It speaks to the LAZINESS and DISHONESTY of Heather and her acolytes that they did no homework.
Precisely. They are all part of the hydrologic system, and the hydrologic cycle which fills them. And much is underground, in the form of aquifers which are fed by these systems. It's sheer stupidity to believe otherwise.
And to read how farming has now drained the aquifers west of the Rocky Mountains is appalling. I read just last night about sheep farmers in Colorado who have depended on the Colorado River and the attendant aquifers that have been drained in the recent drought and how they are no longer able to irrigate the vast pastures on which they depend.
Sheep farmers may plant grains or vegetables if they get their water back. Ecologically that’s what the EU is doing in hopes of alleviating starvation caused by climate change (caused by pollution).
Yes. I believe this is relatively true too. Whatever bad comes their wealth will shield them from the worst, and therefore they don't care. I also don't really believe they care about their grandchildren or offspring that much. Everyone used to say that the Nazis were mean to Jews and nice to their own families, but I believe that was not true. I think they were mean to everyone. The same is true here. Nicer, but not nice. They don't know how to be caring because they don't care. Caring people steward the planet.
I think a malignant narcissist can treat you very well until you no longer please them, which can just be a matter of whim. Look at how suddenly and completely Trump turns on former allies? We are just toys in their toybox. That's not empathy. Lincoln said "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." I think that as he often did, he nailed it, and it that it fair to extend that concept beyond slaver per se to domineering. Yes, we cannot tolerate predatory approaches to to human relations, which is the point, but it's a problem even at the level of family and well as a despotic state. I think we all have the potential to abuse our power over others, and violence occurs in many forms. We also, of necessity, pursue self-interest, but (mostly) temper that urge with conscience and/or compassion.
Yet we all possess a deep survival-oriented "reptile" brain, that has a high degree of veto power over "better angels", and would-be despots exploit that. We see it in the news every day. I think we all have potential for instances of "reptile" behavior, but I think that kids who have been terrified into submission by authoritarian parents are more likely to regard that as normative, and more readily embrace tyrants.
The case was about an Idaho couple s Michael and Chantell Sackett who purchased property near
Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare
for building a home. The Environmental Protection Agency informed
the Sacketts that their property contained wetlands and that their
backfilling violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharging
pollutants into “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(7).
The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day. The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not “waters of the United States.”
AGAIN the Sackets poured DIRT near a ditch, which was near a creek, which was near lake.
ONLY A MORON or Climate activist would would believe this is damaging the enviroment or that it violated the CLEAN WATERS ACT.
The Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the Sacket's
As a separate question the Court disagreed over the language of what constitutes wetlands. By a 5-4 margin the Majority argued the definition language was causing litigation and that Congress needed to tighten up the language.
IT IS A DISGRACFUL that the Supreme Court is gutting the EPA, or harming the environment.
It took me 5 minutes of research to see this who post was a LIE. It speaks to the LAZINESS and DISHONESTY of Heather and her acolytes that they did no homework.
James, in spite of your hostility, I appreciate that you did prompt me to read much of the split decision opinion, and look at the disagreements between the justices. For you to act like this is obviously an idiotic thing for people to be disturbed about seems rather strange. None of us know how many millions of acres of wetlands may now become more polluted.
A point Justice Kagan made here is that having a law (passed, BTW, in a bipartisan manner in Congress) be "broad" does not mean that it is "vague". Thus saying "there's a need to use much clearer language", is BS, to her thinking in this case. Congress in 1972 INTENDED for the power of the EPA to be broad.
The five justices taking upon themselves to redefine what should be the limits of the Clean Water Act , based on "clarity of language", is at least very questionable. Whatever happened to the idea that activist judges were an anathema to conservatives?
From an ecological standpoint, you tell us what makes more sense: a) water that sometimes flows into other water should NOT be regulated because there's not a "continuous" connection "on the surface", or b) water that connects to larger bodies of water either underground or part of the year can have major downstream environmental safety effects? Why was Justice Kavanaugh willing to split from the 5 "shrink the federal govt" zealots on this?
Dude. You posted this seven times and then I got bored and quit counting. Switch to decaf.
On the issue itself, it is not moronic to insist people obey the law on wetlands. The Sacketts did not and were properly sanctioned. At the time of their action, their backfill DID violate the Clean Water Act. And contrary to your sneering, backfilling wetlands does damage the environment, by making it more difficult of us to manage floods and recharge aquifers.
SCOTUS made the illegal legal. Fine, that's SCOTUS' job. So the Sacketts can proceed. I hope others use this decision to understand the value of keeping wetlands intact on their property whenever possible. It helps us all.
Please call them “Radical.” They are not conservative. “Conservatives” conserve. Radicals destroy. Keep thinking of the French mob and that of January 6th.
Agreed. In fact, given the recent revelation that the Catholic Church in Illinois has almost 2000 additional cases of clergy abusing children that has been unreported since 1950, I have been wondering why we allow churches tax exemptions and nonProfit status at all. How is that separation of church and state? I personally think the Catholic church should be shut down it is doing so much harm. Their infiltration into the health care services and taking over of hospitals all over the country, has made it difficult for women to get birth control or abortions or any health procedure connected to stem cell research even in states that do not place restrictions on any of these activities. The Opus Dei/ Federalist Society is a well organized mob like danger to our nation. They are terrorists in their actions.
Linda, read Playing God: American Catholic Bishops and the Far Right, by Mary Jo McConahay. Excellent look at how this has all unfolded. Not so much the clerical abuse but the roots of the religious right and the involvement of wealthy Catholic conservatives who finance the partisan politics of the mostly anti- Pope Francis Bishops. I think they have crossed the church/state separation line many times in recent years.
The case was about an Idaho couple s Michael and Chantell Sackett who purchased property near
Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare
for building a home. The Environmental Protection Agency informed
the Sacketts that their property contained wetlands and that their
backfilling violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharging
pollutants into “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(7).
The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day. The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not “waters of the United States.”
AGAIN the Sackets poured DIRT near a ditch, which was near a creek, which was near lake.
ONLY A MORON or Climate activist would would believe this is damaging the enviroment or that it violated the CLEAN WATERS ACT.
The Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the Sacket's
As a separate question the Court disagreed over the language of what constitutes wetlands. By a 5-4 margin the Majority argued the definition language was causing litigation and that Congress needed to tighten up the language.
IT IS A DISGRACFUL that the Supreme Court is gutting the EPA, or harming the environment.
It took me 5 minutes of research to see this who post was a LIE. It speaks to the LAZINESS and DISHONESTY of Heather and her acolytes that they did no homework.
Pig farms near or in wild bird habitat. What could go wrong? Epidemiologist have traced the 1918 Pandemic to Haskil KS where wild migratory birds came into contact with pig livestock. Horses, pigs, birds are reservoirs of influenza. Each ring is like a layered defense for us humans. The biggest danger to our immunity is when a novel strain skips a species and starts kills humans. Without wet lands we loose our layered defense. The supreme courts decision has National Security ramifications. Too bad federalist society libertarians have not read a book.
I would expect that a higher level of proof will be required to demonstrate that ground waters are affected by manure runoff or pcb seepage from industrial scale feedlots and "private" industrial disposal sites. This is quite a terrifying decision as it will be cited in favor of open dumping, strip mining, oils waste, and you name whatever private sector enterprise that produces toxins from extraction through production through recycling and disposal. Next to clean air protections, safe water has been sacrosanct since the 1970s. Damn. Maybe I should open up that acreage I have been maintaining as pristine valley and forest to folks willing to pay for someplace out in rural America to truck in waste and nasty stuff as my lowlands are not contiguous to any surface streams or waterways. Can imagine the brouhaha that'd come up at town meetings and raised with Wisconsin DNR, though DNR no longer can in estimate private property issues.
They are so important in helping the damage caused by extreme weather as well. The Stench Court and their sponsors are so greedy that they think their money will save them from the destruction they are aiding and abetting. Once again I am thankful I am as old as I am with no direct descendants.
I understand and I just turned 80. I now have ex-students who are considering not having children or have stopped at one. These problems with climate change have been obvious for a long time to those who have been paying attention. Then there is my sister's family....I am great great aunt to at least ten or possibly more kids.
Someday our people of child-bearing age who want children will begin to adopt the millions of orphans that war and climate change have left unprotected. May the day come sooner rather than later. It will take changes in adoption laws, but if we can get a Democratic “wave” in ‘24 and another in ‘28, some thinking about the future might just take place. (Republicans currently seem incapable of thought.)
It's impossible to allow private parties to backfill or pollute their "private property" without it affecting the ground water many miles away. I'm sure the SC knows this but doesn't care. They've proven time and again that they care about nothing and nobody.
We on Cape Cod understand that all of our water comes from our single-source aquifer. Right now, one fight is to deny permits for a machine gun range that will pollute our aquifer. The other fight is to keep Holtec, the company decommissioning the Pilgrim Nuclear Plant, from dumping a million gallons of contaminated water in Cape Cod Bay. The greed of both companies and individuals seems boundless and their understanding of the consequences of their proposed actions is non-existent.
In Indiana District 8 last year we had Ray McCormick a Democrat run against Larry Bucshon a Republican. One of Ray's talking points was saving the wetlands. He grew up on a farm in Southern Indiana and continues to farm. He had also worked under the Obama administration. He would have been an asset whereas....we have do nothing no show Bucshon. He is show up for the tornado that devastated Sullivan, IN and and the photo opps with do nothing Todd Young! I am sure we paid for their trip to walk around Sullivan. Yep! Indiana is a RED STATE! I cry!
I think they are completely wedded to a rigid and outdated worldview that values man and money above everything and everyone else. They simply do not care about anything else.
but also show once again like Dobbs they think themselves well enough educated and qualified to rule on technical issues well (no pun intended) outside areas remotely within their expertise. Any college graduate or possibly even high school student exposed to even a smudgeon of ecology or environmental studies would understand the connectedness of waterways of all shapes and konds within an ecosystem. But no the folks who passed that decision would not have passed an elementary (ahem) science test on the subject. I guess they’re confident of being experts on everything that comes their way. Egregious.
The conservative judges are pro-business and without regulations businesses only care about profit. Profits over people, environment, climate. They couldn't care less. I guess they figure they will be pushing daisies by the time the chickens come home to roost. The irony is that most of those CEOs had to have been part of the environmental movement in the 70s. But let us not forget that they can rationalize anything to justify their greed.
The entire "Republican" Party is now completely owned by sociopathic avarice. Anything is up for sacrifice if it satisfies the obsessive greed of their patrons.
I was wondering what elemennts create Stuart Rhodes, and recalling how a returned Viet Nam vet sprang out of bed and was on his feet, pointing a gun at his mother who had tapped on his door to call him to breakfast. Stuart Rhodes is also a US military graduate:
This Court is WAY overstepping ing its bounds. It is nullifying laws passed by Congress and signed by the President, essentially making themselves an unelected cabal with little accountability. I would refer everyone to The Hartmann Report written by Thom Hartmann, on Substack. He does an excellent job of explaining how the radical justices are overstepping the bounds of the Court, that Congress can regulate it as Congress "created" the Court using the parameters listed in the Constitution. Ironically, the SCOTUS says it can't regulate political gerrymandering, but can regulate decisions of Congress protecting the common good of the country. At least 5 of them should be impeached for corruption.
I am at least somewhat relieved to hear we may have recourse against the ignorance,greed, and corruption of this court. We have pandered to business so much over the past forty years that this is what we get--Existential threats to health, education, welfare, and the common good.
There is no safeguards for any of us, our way of life or our future. SCOTUS has become a Republican instrument of what appears to be our Democracy’s demise
Well, when? When? When?????? After all our water is undrinkable? We have let the most foul ideology pollute our government. Must we tolerate such idiocy . We refuse. We refuse we refuse!!!!! Must we allow fouling our own drinking water? Is this truly sane?
We got rid of Kings! Now get rid of Supreme Court delusion... we have simply given the reins to lunatics.
Are we just going to sit back and blather, or are we really demanding that our laws rule. Not the other way around. 😱☠️
Yes, birds nest and raise their young in wetlands. A Sand County Almanac is a classic, much like Rachel Carson's books about the seashore, except it is inland.
YES! I have a family of sandhill cranes in my neighborhood (SE Michigan). My home abuts a wonderful wetland. Today - again - I thank the voters of Michigan for our wonderful leaders here.
This is just horrifying. As if birds and other wildlife aren’t already under threat due to development, the use of pesticides, and so on. Why do these people want to destroy the earth?!
What happens to wildlife effects our natural protection from “spillover” as well. Wetlands serve us in more than one way. Both 1918 and 2020 Pandemics demonstrate these facts.
THIS IS TOO STUPID TO BELIEVE. Did you read the ruling?
The Sackets were back filling a lot with dirt, near a ditch, which fed creek, which fed into a lake. Not only is this NOT covered by the CLEAN WATERS ACT, Its utter STUPID to believe that pouring DIRT on your lot to level it out for building IS DESTROYING WETLANDS.
The Court agreed 9-0
In a seperate issue, they disagreed (5-4) about whether Congress needed to clarify its
language what constituted CLEAN WATERS of the US. The majority felt that the ambiguous language was causing litigation. THEY asked Congress to tighten up its LANGUAGE.
Its A LIE that this is destroying American wetland or gutting the EPA.
What I don't get is why, when nine unelected people rule, we all just have to throw up our hands and say, "OK, whatever you say, boss." What would happen if the feds just ignored the court on this?
In New Jersey, we have our own wetlands protection act, and state EPA, so this will not affect our state, for now. ( I hope).The decision by the SCOTUS does set the stage for weakening our rules, should our state GOP, gain control here. ( not likely) Local activism brought about our own protections and I hope other states follow as well.
Jack while being glad your state has some wetlands protection in place despite any gutting of the EPA, I fear that what is and will be essential in trying to effectively roll back effects of climate change does not respect state lines or even international boundaries. Earth is an ecosystem as a whole which, while having some natural boundaries (mountains, continents) the oceans and rivers cross even those boundaries freely joining us all regardless of our specific state and federal governments. This is what makes Biden's political and diplomatic efforts so essential to making a difference in our striving toward a more stable world both climatically as well as politically. He has and continues to reach out to engage others as far as he can.
Very true, but as long as the radicals are in charge of the SCOTUS, local action is the only option, as inadequate as that may be. Biden needs to reshape the court, or they will continue to take us backward.
I asked the same thing about the debt ceiling. It seems the government can always come up with money. The debt ceiling seems dumb to me since it's always raised. Why even have it? It seems to exist only for Republicans to complain about spending when they aren't in the majority and can't do whatever they want, or to hold hostage when they aren't in power. Their "cuts" will ADD, not cut, the deficit, while hurting less fortunate Americans, including their own constituents.
Just about every economist will reply that it’s misleading to make an analogy between household and government finances. We often aren’t clear enough about why, perhaps because we don’t say it bluntly enough. So here’s the difference: You are going to get old and eventually die. The government isn’t.
And lenders therefore demand that individual borrowers pay off their debts while they still have the income to do so.
Governments, on the other hand, normally see their revenues rise, generation after generation, as the economies they regulate and tax grow:
In fact, when governments for one reason or another run up large debts, it is, as far as I can tell, unusual to pay those debts off.
The most famous example, albeit one that many people apparently don’t know about, is the debt America incurred to fight World War II. By the war’s end, this debt was around 100 percent of gross domestic product — roughly comparable to the debt level today. So how did we pay off that debt?
We didn’t.
By the end of the Napoleonic Wars, the British government’s debt, according to Bank of England estimates, was 184 percent of G.D.P. — far above America’s debt at the end of World War II.. So how did Britain pay off its Napoleonic debt?
It didn’t.
In much more recent history, when governments were mistakenly pursuing fiscal austerity in the face of high unemployment, I used to accuse deficit scolds of being obsessed with Victorian virtues. I was, I now realize, being unfair to the Victorians.
So for all those whose instinct is to assume that a responsible government would, like a responsible individual, pay off its debts as soon as it can, again:
I know it seems like a really dumb reason, but I think you answered your own question: the debt ceiling exists so that the out-of-power party can complain about the budget and gum up the works. It's intentionally introduced friction, and I'm still mulling over it's usefulness. It falls in the same category as the filibuster -- why have a rule that deliberately makes it more difficult to govern? I'm not sure I'm wise enough to answer.
Actually, they have no other goal than cutting taxes again and again for the wealthy ( some of whom said the didn’t need them) and empowering their “base”. This is not patriotism, this is suicide.
The Radicalized Extreme Court of the United States, “Rec Us” has assumed unlimited control of our laws via their “interpretations” of laws on the books for 50 years. They are literally rewriting the law by surpassing a filibustered Senate that now passes nothing at all. They are the new Super Branch of Government and cannot be voted out
SCOTUS is sending a message: the majority is as Radical as the party of the presidents and the majority on the judiciary committees who chose them. They could have been out with flagpoles on January 6th. Sorry to put it in plain English, but to destroy our water and food supply in a time of climate change must have our allies trembling and Putin laughing.
Ted, this right here. I cannot fathom that wetlands, which (at least to my way of thinking) serve as the environment's digestive system in filtering and feeding the area. No, you cannot build on undrained wetlands, but they are there for an environmental reason.
Did you read the case? The posts here are getting stupider by the minute.
The Sackett's sued the EPA over pouring dirt on their land to level it out before they built a house. The land was near a ditch, which was near creek, which was near a lake. Only a moron would think violated the EPA Clean Waters Act, let alone was an environmental hazard.
MY PROOF? The Court voted 9-0.
As a side issue, the court disagreed (5-4) going forward on the whatr constituted wetlands. There were conflicts in the statue that was causing needless litigation. The majority asked Congress to tighten up the language.
Stop being lazy and do your homework. It took me 5 minutes of homework to realize this was all BS.
I'm sorry but this MAY BE the stupidest LAZIEST post of ALL TIME.
Did anyone bother to read the ruling or the merits? Of course not.
Just cut and paste from Media Matters
First it was INCREDIBLY DISHONEST how you characterized the RULING.
The ruling CAME DOWN 9-0 in favor of plaintiffs Michael and Chantell Sackett, two Idaho residents whom the EPA prohibited from building a home near a wetland years ago.
"The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day," Alito's majority opinion stated. "The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as 'waters of the United States' because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not 'waters of the United States.'"
The Sackets had purchased land and were backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare to build.
The lot in question was on a ditch that fed into a a creek, which fed into a lake. Its an incredible stretch to say DIRT used to level out a lot near a ditch, near a creek, near a lake
was a violation of THE CLEAN WATERS ACT.
ONLY A MORON or a CLIMATE ACTIVIST would think so.
BY 9-0 the Court agreed.
As a separate issue the court took up the question of WATERS of the United States
As Ailito wrote "(a) The uncertain meaning of “the waters of the United States” has
been a persistent problem, sparking decades of agency action and litigation. Resolving the CWA’s applicability to wetlands requires a review of the history surrounding the interpretation of that phrase.
However, the court split 5-4 in its analysis of how the federal government should define a water source under the Clean Water Act.
"Understanding the CWA to apply to wetlands that are distinguishable from otherwise covered 'waters of the United States' would substantially broaden [existing statute] to define 'navigable waters' as 'waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands,'" Alito wrote.
“Enact exceedingly clear language” on any rules that affect private property." The majority asked Congress to clarify its language.
THIS IS YET AGAIN A MISTAKE A first year graduate wouldn't make. Your characterization
as gutting the EPA and threatening the climate IS SO DISHONEST I'm at a loss.
Its obvious that all leftist care about is sanctimonious virtue signaling. The truth is NOT a leftwing value.
Next, our national parks and protected lands. The next great sell-off of our national treasures. Soon, sell off all federal buildings and land and rent them back to the Government while that enterprise lasts. Hedge-fund mentality here? You bet. Me thinks a nice new shopping mall for the umber-rich on the site of the Canon Building, which now houses the Congress, would really be nice, he smirks.
If our wetlands can not be protected, no one’s water is safe.
Agree, 100%. And if our wetlands disappear, what happens to the wildlife that lives there? This, coupled with climate change, is incredibly frightening to me.
I saw that 900 different species live in wetlands all over the country. While we might want to propose that states take over regulating our wetlands, it turns out that about half of the stats have laws on the books stating that they cannot impose stricter regulations than the EPA, so when the Court destroys the federal government's regulations, they are also effective preventing the states from taking over. I keep wondering if any of the Justices have children or grandchildren and why they're not concerned about the planet subsequent generations will be inheriting.
It is beyond tragic that the party of extreme greed is actually willing to destroy the EPA.
They're willing to destroy the world we all live in/on. The delusion is that their money can buy them exemption from reality. Good luck with that.
I heard this reported on NPR yesterday, while driving. My first thought wasn't Houston, but Southern Louisiana and Katrina. People are having to be relocated because the very land they've lived on for generations is being inudated. But then, they're poor people, mostly, so who cares, right, Alito?
The destruction of the planet is also connected to a specific Evangelical/ Dominionist ideology. They believe that only once the planet is in ruins, Jesus can return. Thousands of Christian officials in all levels of government believe this. This brand of policymaking has been going on at least since Caspar Weinberger, who believed protecting the environment didn't matter, because the rapture was upon us. It's complete mental illness. If there was one test for office, it should be that Armageddonists cannot hold office.
It’s not mental illness, it’s weaponized imbecility.
I think you are right, Holly. I wish I could wave a wand to remove the delusion of supremacy from human beings. Until we recognize that we are simply a part of nature and respect it, we are doomed.
I once asked one of these "Armageddonists" how they would know the real Jesus when He comes to Earth again. "Well," he said, "I'll know it's the real Jesus when he confirms His Message in the Bible." "What if He wants to give you a new Message? What if He says something like, 'Now for Chapter 2 of the New Testament!'?" "Then I'll know it's a false Christ and we'll have to kill him" (The fact that we were conversing in the pitch darkness of a Cub Scout cavern campout trip late at night in NW Georgia made it even creepier.)
It's sad -- even Jesus Himself can't tell them anything new.
I have often wished the rapture would occur and carry off these wing nuts. They had signs on their cars that said they would disappear.
The great Sigourney Weaver has a question for the room.
https://youtu.be/Ay80wwQ_e2k
My religion is Voodoo. It is no less valid than any other religion (islam, christianity, etc). We do not have this 'rapture' problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Voodoo
What? Seriously, I knew they were nuts (I have 2 of them in my immediate family) but this is really really out there.
It's a cult, just slower to act than Jim Jones.
Wasn't Weinberger Jewish? If so, he couldn't believe in Rapture. Or was he such a self-hating Jew that Rapture theology was in his wheelhouse?
Wow. This about Christian officials is new to me. It does make sense that something had to be behind it besides just ... what? Religious fervor, in my opinion, is emotionally damaged people looking for black-and-white answers, and it puts too many of them in the position of continually being manipulated.
"... specific Evangelical/ Dominionist ideology." Spot on Holly; They represent a solid third of the coalition behind the far right (wrong) wing extremists.
Destruction of the planet?
Pouring dirt on your lot to level it out before you build is destroying the planet? There lot was near ditch, that was near creek, which was near a lake.
The sanctimonious lecturing is unbelievable.
BTW the court ruled 9-0 in favor of the Sacketts. I'll bet you didn't know that before you virtued signaled about the planet.
By 5-4 the Majority asked Congress to tighten their language on the term wet lands to lessen litigation.
Let's stop lying about the POST
DID YOU READ THE RULING? Of course not.
It was a 9-0 ruling on the merits.
The case was about an Idaho couple s Michael and Chantell Sackett who purchased property near
Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare
for building a home. The Environmental Protection Agency informed
the Sacketts that their property contained wetlands and that their
backfilling violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharging
pollutants into “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(7).
The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day. The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not “waters of the United States.”
AGAIN the Sackets poured DIRT near a ditch, which was near a creek, which was near lake.
ONLY A MORON or Climate activist would would believe this is damaging the enviroment or that it violated the CLEAN WATERS ACT.
The Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the Sacket's
As a separate question the Court disagreed over the language of what constitutes wetlands. By a 5-4 margin the Majority argued the definition language was causing litigation and that Congress needed to tighten up the language.
IT IS A DISGRACFUL that the Supreme Court is accused gutting the EPA, or harming the environment.
It took me 5 minutes of research to see this who post was a LIE. It speaks to the LAZINESS and DISHONESTY of Heather and her acolytes that they did no homework.
Katrina was bad and really hard on lower income folks. I was part of a church group that made three 1 week repair efforts. Because I was qualified I did mostly rewiring of homes. In many cases the original wiring was terrible but we could fix that what was harder was helping the people deal with the hell they had gone through. About half of our group just spent time with folks listening to what they had been through.
Having spent more that 30 years working in heavy industry dealing with the EPA and OHSA wasn't always easy but both are critical to our personal and collective future.
The Supreme Court must be fixed. Not easy but we the people have to get this done starting now for the 2024 election.
Hopefully, fixing the Supreme Court is next on the Biden agenda. Soon as we get past this debt ceiling debacle. I think Joe Biden will be remembered as the best US President in American history!
That was my first thought too along with the destruction of mangrove swamps in other places. Poor people, why should the wealthy and their minions in government even give them a thought.
Let's stop lying about the POST
DID YOU READ THE RULING? Of course not.
It was a 9-0 ruling on the merits.
The case was about an Idaho couple s Michael and Chantell Sackett who purchased property near
Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare
for building a home. The Environmental Protection Agency informed
the Sacketts that their property contained wetlands and that their
backfilling violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharging
pollutants into “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(7).
The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day. The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not “waters of the United States.”
AGAIN the Sackets poured DIRT near a ditch, which was near a creek, which was near lake.
ONLY A MORON or Climate activist would would believe this is damaging the enviroment or that it violated the CLEAN WATERS ACT.
The Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the Sacket's
As a separate question the Court disagreed over the language of what constitutes wetlands. By a 5-4 margin the Majority argued the definition language was causing litigation and that Congress needed to tighten up the language.
IT IS A DISGRACFUL that the Supreme Court is accused of gutting the EPA, or harming the environment.
It took me 5 minutes of research to see this who post was a LIE. It speaks to the LAZINESS and DISHONESTY of Heather and her acolytes that they did no homework.
Sandra, I lived there, watching oil barges destroy the wetlands and the shrimp and oysters of those who had made their living supplying them and eating them for two centuries (and maybe longer). I knew a Corps of Engineers guy whose life was destroyed by his love of his state and his inability to bear what was happening to its core.
Thank you, Virginia. I left Florida for much the same reason. Total enactment of Joni Mitchell's Big Yellow Taxi (aka: They Paved Paradise and Put Up a Parking Lot)
Meanwhile, our tax dollars go to rebuild beaches in front of millionaire's houses
Indeed. And subsidize their flood insurance. North Carolina's coast is a good example. They're beginning to question allowing people to build right up to the water's edge (Rodanthe)!! At least two houses have disappeared into the drink so far this year. Barrier islands are, almost by definition, impermanent.
I am remembering that many of those living in Southern LA were living in lowlands that had to be reclaimed as marsh to restore the natural ecology. it is my understanding that they should not be returning to lands that they lived on even for generations, lands that need to be restored as marsh to absorb the waters coming downstream. Correct me if you please. The same is true on the others coasts as we get into more climate change.
This ruling was made for, and by, corporations. It is the essence of fascism. I am sure, even without doing the research, that the people who destroyed these wetlands in Idaho weren’t just building a porch. They also probably don’t vote for the Democratic Party. (fixed)
That Idaho couple will be the first to bitch when their well water gets contaminated, I assure you.
Of course they will and they will want government help. Water already is a problem in the West and it's only going to get worse. We are lucky here in Oregon that we got a good snow pack this year. There have been years when we haven't.
Or they get flooded out - wetlands have a tendency to be wet - being adjacent to larger bodies of water their source of water . . .
What a sleazy thing to write.
I sure you didn't bother to read the opinion? Its embarrassing how many people on this site didn't do their homework.
Let's stop lying about the POST
DID YOU READ THE RULING? Of course not.
It was a 9-0 ruling on the merits.
The case was about an Idaho couple s Michael and Chantell Sackett who purchased property near
Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare
for building a home. The Environmental Protection Agency informed
the Sacketts that their property contained wetlands and that their
backfilling violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharging
pollutants into “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(7).
The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day. The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not “waters of the United States.”
AGAIN the Sackets poured DIRT near a ditch, which was near a creek, which was near lake.
ONLY A MORON or Climate activist would would believe this is damaging the enviroment or that it violated the CLEAN WATERS ACT.
The Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the Sacket's
As a separate question the Court disagreed over the language of what constitutes wetlands. By a 5-4 margin the Majority argued the definition language was causing litigation and that Congress needed to tighten up the language.
IT IS A DISGRACFUL that the Supreme Court is accused of gutting the EPA, or harming the environment.
It took me 5 minutes of research to see this who post was a LIE. It speaks to the LAZINESS and DISHONESTY of Heather and her acolytes that they did no homework.
I think you meant to write, “vote Democratic.”
Thoroughly edited. 😊
Fascism? That's when the FBI lies to America about Trump collusion when it was the narrative was bankrolled by The Clinton Campaign or when the CIA/FBI lie about The Hunter Biden laptop. That's fascism.
Its also fascism when you blatantly lie about THE SUPREME COURT ruling.
Did you think NO ONE would check? Even read the opinion?
Let's stop lying about the POST
DID YOU READ THE RULING? Of course not.
It was a 9-0 ruling on the merits.
The case was about an Idaho couple s Michael and Chantell Sackett who purchased property near
Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare
for building a home. The Environmental Protection Agency informed
the Sacketts that their property contained wetlands and that their
backfilling violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharging
pollutants into “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(7).
The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day. The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not “waters of the United States.”
AGAIN the Sackets poured DIRT near a ditch, which was near a creek, which was near lake.
ONLY A MORON or Climate activist would would believe this is damaging the environment or that it violated the CLEAN WATERS ACT.
The Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the Sacket's
As a separate question the Court disagreed over the language of what constitutes wetlands. By a 5-4 margin the Majority argued the definition language was causing litigation and that Congress needed to tighten up the language.
IT IS A DISGRACFUL that the Supreme Court is accused of gutting the EPA, or harming the environment.
It took me 5 minutes of research to see this who post was a LIE. It speaks to the LAZINESS and DISHONESTY of Heather and her acolytes that they did no homework.
And at this point the world economy!
It is hard to separate wetlands from contingent waterways.
Precisely. They are all part of the hydrologic system, and the hydrologic cycle which fills them. And much is underground, in the form of aquifers which are fed by these systems. It's sheer stupidity to believe otherwise.
And to read how farming has now drained the aquifers west of the Rocky Mountains is appalling. I read just last night about sheep farmers in Colorado who have depended on the Colorado River and the attendant aquifers that have been drained in the recent drought and how they are no longer able to irrigate the vast pastures on which they depend.
Which state sold of water rights to the Saudi 's to grow alfalfa to feed their horses : Arizona ???
Sheep farmers may plant grains or vegetables if they get their water back. Ecologically that’s what the EU is doing in hopes of alleviating starvation caused by climate change (caused by pollution).
Well, they sure aren’t afraid of stupidity, are they? I keep being surprised at how often I can still be surprised.
Aren’t
The families that the SCOTUS majority ultimately works for figure that their money will insulate then from any unpleasant outcomes
Yes. I believe this is relatively true too. Whatever bad comes their wealth will shield them from the worst, and therefore they don't care. I also don't really believe they care about their grandchildren or offspring that much. Everyone used to say that the Nazis were mean to Jews and nice to their own families, but I believe that was not true. I think they were mean to everyone. The same is true here. Nicer, but not nice. They don't know how to be caring because they don't care. Caring people steward the planet.
I think a malignant narcissist can treat you very well until you no longer please them, which can just be a matter of whim. Look at how suddenly and completely Trump turns on former allies? We are just toys in their toybox. That's not empathy. Lincoln said "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." I think that as he often did, he nailed it, and it that it fair to extend that concept beyond slaver per se to domineering. Yes, we cannot tolerate predatory approaches to to human relations, which is the point, but it's a problem even at the level of family and well as a despotic state. I think we all have the potential to abuse our power over others, and violence occurs in many forms. We also, of necessity, pursue self-interest, but (mostly) temper that urge with conscience and/or compassion.
Yet we all possess a deep survival-oriented "reptile" brain, that has a high degree of veto power over "better angels", and would-be despots exploit that. We see it in the news every day. I think we all have potential for instances of "reptile" behavior, but I think that kids who have been terrified into submission by authoritarian parents are more likely to regard that as normative, and more readily embrace tyrants.
Idiots.
the conservative justices serve Leonard Leo and his cabal not the United States
l
Exactly! The conservative justices of SCOTUS are nothing but lackeys of Leo and his Federalist Society.
Let's stop lying about the POST
DID YOU READ THE RULING? Of course not.
It was a 9-0 ruling on the merits.
The case was about an Idaho couple s Michael and Chantell Sackett who purchased property near
Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare
for building a home. The Environmental Protection Agency informed
the Sacketts that their property contained wetlands and that their
backfilling violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharging
pollutants into “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(7).
The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day. The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not “waters of the United States.”
AGAIN the Sackets poured DIRT near a ditch, which was near a creek, which was near lake.
ONLY A MORON or Climate activist would would believe this is damaging the enviroment or that it violated the CLEAN WATERS ACT.
The Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the Sacket's
As a separate question the Court disagreed over the language of what constitutes wetlands. By a 5-4 margin the Majority argued the definition language was causing litigation and that Congress needed to tighten up the language.
IT IS A DISGRACFUL that the Supreme Court is gutting the EPA, or harming the environment.
It took me 5 minutes of research to see this who post was a LIE. It speaks to the LAZINESS and DISHONESTY of Heather and her acolytes that they did no homework.
James, in spite of your hostility, I appreciate that you did prompt me to read much of the split decision opinion, and look at the disagreements between the justices. For you to act like this is obviously an idiotic thing for people to be disturbed about seems rather strange. None of us know how many millions of acres of wetlands may now become more polluted.
A point Justice Kagan made here is that having a law (passed, BTW, in a bipartisan manner in Congress) be "broad" does not mean that it is "vague". Thus saying "there's a need to use much clearer language", is BS, to her thinking in this case. Congress in 1972 INTENDED for the power of the EPA to be broad.
The five justices taking upon themselves to redefine what should be the limits of the Clean Water Act , based on "clarity of language", is at least very questionable. Whatever happened to the idea that activist judges were an anathema to conservatives?
From an ecological standpoint, you tell us what makes more sense: a) water that sometimes flows into other water should NOT be regulated because there's not a "continuous" connection "on the surface", or b) water that connects to larger bodies of water either underground or part of the year can have major downstream environmental safety effects? Why was Justice Kavanaugh willing to split from the 5 "shrink the federal govt" zealots on this?
Dude. You posted this seven times and then I got bored and quit counting. Switch to decaf.
On the issue itself, it is not moronic to insist people obey the law on wetlands. The Sacketts did not and were properly sanctioned. At the time of their action, their backfill DID violate the Clean Water Act. And contrary to your sneering, backfilling wetlands does damage the environment, by making it more difficult of us to manage floods and recharge aquifers.
SCOTUS made the illegal legal. Fine, that's SCOTUS' job. So the Sacketts can proceed. I hope others use this decision to understand the value of keeping wetlands intact on their property whenever possible. It helps us all.
Please call them “Radical.” They are not conservative. “Conservatives” conserve. Radicals destroy. Keep thinking of the French mob and that of January 6th.
100%
Agreed. In fact, given the recent revelation that the Catholic Church in Illinois has almost 2000 additional cases of clergy abusing children that has been unreported since 1950, I have been wondering why we allow churches tax exemptions and nonProfit status at all. How is that separation of church and state? I personally think the Catholic church should be shut down it is doing so much harm. Their infiltration into the health care services and taking over of hospitals all over the country, has made it difficult for women to get birth control or abortions or any health procedure connected to stem cell research even in states that do not place restrictions on any of these activities. The Opus Dei/ Federalist Society is a well organized mob like danger to our nation. They are terrorists in their actions.
Linda, read Playing God: American Catholic Bishops and the Far Right, by Mary Jo McConahay. Excellent look at how this has all unfolded. Not so much the clerical abuse but the roots of the religious right and the involvement of wealthy Catholic conservatives who finance the partisan politics of the mostly anti- Pope Francis Bishops. I think they have crossed the church/state separation line many times in recent years.
Let's stop lying about the POST
DID YOU READ THE RULING? Of course not.
It was a 9-0 ruling on the merits.
The case was about an Idaho couple s Michael and Chantell Sackett who purchased property near
Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare
for building a home. The Environmental Protection Agency informed
the Sacketts that their property contained wetlands and that their
backfilling violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits discharging
pollutants into “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(7).
The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day. The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not “waters of the United States.”
AGAIN the Sackets poured DIRT near a ditch, which was near a creek, which was near lake.
ONLY A MORON or Climate activist would would believe this is damaging the enviroment or that it violated the CLEAN WATERS ACT.
The Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the Sacket's
As a separate question the Court disagreed over the language of what constitutes wetlands. By a 5-4 margin the Majority argued the definition language was causing litigation and that Congress needed to tighten up the language.
IT IS A DISGRACFUL that the Supreme Court is gutting the EPA, or harming the environment.
It took me 5 minutes of research to see this who post was a LIE. It speaks to the LAZINESS and DISHONESTY of Heather and her acolytes that they did no homework.
We know that one of them has a string of young children.
Pig farms near or in wild bird habitat. What could go wrong? Epidemiologist have traced the 1918 Pandemic to Haskil KS where wild migratory birds came into contact with pig livestock. Horses, pigs, birds are reservoirs of influenza. Each ring is like a layered defense for us humans. The biggest danger to our immunity is when a novel strain skips a species and starts kills humans. Without wet lands we loose our layered defense. The supreme courts decision has National Security ramifications. Too bad federalist society libertarians have not read a book.
I would expect that a higher level of proof will be required to demonstrate that ground waters are affected by manure runoff or pcb seepage from industrial scale feedlots and "private" industrial disposal sites. This is quite a terrifying decision as it will be cited in favor of open dumping, strip mining, oils waste, and you name whatever private sector enterprise that produces toxins from extraction through production through recycling and disposal. Next to clean air protections, safe water has been sacrosanct since the 1970s. Damn. Maybe I should open up that acreage I have been maintaining as pristine valley and forest to folks willing to pay for someplace out in rural America to truck in waste and nasty stuff as my lowlands are not contiguous to any surface streams or waterways. Can imagine the brouhaha that'd come up at town meetings and raised with Wisconsin DNR, though DNR no longer can in estimate private property issues.
They are so important in helping the damage caused by extreme weather as well. The Stench Court and their sponsors are so greedy that they think their money will save them from the destruction they are aiding and abetting. Once again I am thankful I am as old as I am with no direct descendants.
Wow, i’m 75 and have no children either. And sadly, I’ve often been thankful for that. Today is one of those days.
I understand and I just turned 80. I now have ex-students who are considering not having children or have stopped at one. These problems with climate change have been obvious for a long time to those who have been paying attention. Then there is my sister's family....I am great great aunt to at least ten or possibly more kids.
I wish we were neighbors. I'd like very much to sit and talk over a cup of coffee with you. Be well.
Someday our people of child-bearing age who want children will begin to adopt the millions of orphans that war and climate change have left unprotected. May the day come sooner rather than later. It will take changes in adoption laws, but if we can get a Democratic “wave” in ‘24 and another in ‘28, some thinking about the future might just take place. (Republicans currently seem incapable of thought.)
It's impossible to allow private parties to backfill or pollute their "private property" without it affecting the ground water many miles away. I'm sure the SC knows this but doesn't care. They've proven time and again that they care about nothing and nobody.
We on Cape Cod understand that all of our water comes from our single-source aquifer. Right now, one fight is to deny permits for a machine gun range that will pollute our aquifer. The other fight is to keep Holtec, the company decommissioning the Pilgrim Nuclear Plant, from dumping a million gallons of contaminated water in Cape Cod Bay. The greed of both companies and individuals seems boundless and their understanding of the consequences of their proposed actions is non-existent.
They understand. They simply do not care.
In Indiana District 8 last year we had Ray McCormick a Democrat run against Larry Bucshon a Republican. One of Ray's talking points was saving the wetlands. He grew up on a farm in Southern Indiana and continues to farm. He had also worked under the Obama administration. He would have been an asset whereas....we have do nothing no show Bucshon. He is show up for the tornado that devastated Sullivan, IN and and the photo opps with do nothing Todd Young! I am sure we paid for their trip to walk around Sullivan. Yep! Indiana is a RED STATE! I cry!
I think they are completely wedded to a rigid and outdated worldview that values man and money above everything and everyone else. They simply do not care about anything else.
Oh they f**king just think they can pray, and their children and grandchildren will be fine.
Once again the majority on the so-called but hardly “Supreme” Court not only promote pro business etc rulings
Sorry this posted before finished-
but also show once again like Dobbs they think themselves well enough educated and qualified to rule on technical issues well (no pun intended) outside areas remotely within their expertise. Any college graduate or possibly even high school student exposed to even a smudgeon of ecology or environmental studies would understand the connectedness of waterways of all shapes and konds within an ecosystem. But no the folks who passed that decision would not have passed an elementary (ahem) science test on the subject. I guess they’re confident of being experts on everything that comes their way. Egregious.
The conservative judges are pro-business and without regulations businesses only care about profit. Profits over people, environment, climate. They couldn't care less. I guess they figure they will be pushing daisies by the time the chickens come home to roost. The irony is that most of those CEOs had to have been part of the environmental movement in the 70s. But let us not forget that they can rationalize anything to justify their greed.
They are not conservatives, they are radicals. That’s the problem. It’s misused language, a tool of the Far Right.
The entire "Republican" Party is now completely owned by sociopathic avarice. Anything is up for sacrifice if it satisfies the obsessive greed of their patrons.
I was wondering what elemennts create Stuart Rhodes, and recalling how a returned Viet Nam vet sprang out of bed and was on his feet, pointing a gun at his mother who had tapped on his door to call him to breakfast. Stuart Rhodes is also a US military graduate:
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/05/12/exclusive-oath-keepers-leader-stewart-rhodes-children-speak#:~:text=In%20February%2C%20Hatewatch%20met%20with,19%2C%20in%20Kalispell%2C%20Montana.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63709446
Stewart Rhodes' son: ‘How I escaped my father’s militia’ - BBC News
Thanks for sharing Susan, there is hope for these peoples minds being saved.
This Court is WAY overstepping ing its bounds. It is nullifying laws passed by Congress and signed by the President, essentially making themselves an unelected cabal with little accountability. I would refer everyone to The Hartmann Report written by Thom Hartmann, on Substack. He does an excellent job of explaining how the radical justices are overstepping the bounds of the Court, that Congress can regulate it as Congress "created" the Court using the parameters listed in the Constitution. Ironically, the SCOTUS says it can't regulate political gerrymandering, but can regulate decisions of Congress protecting the common good of the country. At least 5 of them should be impeached for corruption.
Indeed, the irony of it all, right wing cherry picking!
I am at least somewhat relieved to hear we may have recourse against the ignorance,greed, and corruption of this court. We have pandered to business so much over the past forty years that this is what we get--Existential threats to health, education, welfare, and the common good.
There is no safeguards for any of us, our way of life or our future. SCOTUS has become a Republican instrument of what appears to be our Democracy’s demise
Well said!
Well, when? When? When?????? After all our water is undrinkable? We have let the most foul ideology pollute our government. Must we tolerate such idiocy . We refuse. We refuse we refuse!!!!! Must we allow fouling our own drinking water? Is this truly sane?
We got rid of Kings! Now get rid of Supreme Court delusion... we have simply given the reins to lunatics.
Are we just going to sit back and blather, or are we really demanding that our laws rule. Not the other way around. 😱☠️
And thank you for “radical.”
Yes, birds nest and raise their young in wetlands. A Sand County Almanac is a classic, much like Rachel Carson's books about the seashore, except it is inland.
YES! I have a family of sandhill cranes in my neighborhood (SE Michigan). My home abuts a wonderful wetland. Today - again - I thank the voters of Michigan for our wonderful leaders here.
This is just horrifying. As if birds and other wildlife aren’t already under threat due to development, the use of pesticides, and so on. Why do these people want to destroy the earth?!
Because they can.
What happens to wildlife effects our natural protection from “spillover” as well. Wetlands serve us in more than one way. Both 1918 and 2020 Pandemics demonstrate these facts.
But Russia doesn't care, and they are pulling the Reoubliconned strings.
THIS IS TOO STUPID TO BELIEVE. Did you read the ruling?
The Sackets were back filling a lot with dirt, near a ditch, which fed creek, which fed into a lake. Not only is this NOT covered by the CLEAN WATERS ACT, Its utter STUPID to believe that pouring DIRT on your lot to level it out for building IS DESTROYING WETLANDS.
The Court agreed 9-0
In a seperate issue, they disagreed (5-4) about whether Congress needed to clarify its
language what constituted CLEAN WATERS of the US. The majority felt that the ambiguous language was causing litigation. THEY asked Congress to tighten up its LANGUAGE.
Its A LIE that this is destroying American wetland or gutting the EPA.
What I don't get is why, when nine unelected people rule, we all just have to throw up our hands and say, "OK, whatever you say, boss." What would happen if the feds just ignored the court on this?
In New Jersey, we have our own wetlands protection act, and state EPA, so this will not affect our state, for now. ( I hope).The decision by the SCOTUS does set the stage for weakening our rules, should our state GOP, gain control here. ( not likely) Local activism brought about our own protections and I hope other states follow as well.
Jack while being glad your state has some wetlands protection in place despite any gutting of the EPA, I fear that what is and will be essential in trying to effectively roll back effects of climate change does not respect state lines or even international boundaries. Earth is an ecosystem as a whole which, while having some natural boundaries (mountains, continents) the oceans and rivers cross even those boundaries freely joining us all regardless of our specific state and federal governments. This is what makes Biden's political and diplomatic efforts so essential to making a difference in our striving toward a more stable world both climatically as well as politically. He has and continues to reach out to engage others as far as he can.
Very true, but as long as the radicals are in charge of the SCOTUS, local action is the only option, as inadequate as that may be. Biden needs to reshape the court, or they will continue to take us backward.
Wait until they declare that federal environmental law preempts state law, I'm sure that's part of their wish list.
Yep.
That is encouraging. We need to band together to defeat these ignorant tyrants now.
I asked the same thing about the debt ceiling. It seems the government can always come up with money. The debt ceiling seems dumb to me since it's always raised. Why even have it? It seems to exist only for Republicans to complain about spending when they aren't in the majority and can't do whatever they want, or to hold hostage when they aren't in power. Their "cuts" will ADD, not cut, the deficit, while hurting less fortunate Americans, including their own constituents.
BC -- "I asked the same thing about the debt ceiling. It seems the government can always come up with money."
"𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘐 𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘣𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘴... 𝘢 𝘯𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴: '𝘐𝘧 𝘐 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘬, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬. 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵? 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘰𝘸𝘦 $31 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯?'” --Paul Krugman
Just about every economist will reply that it’s misleading to make an analogy between household and government finances. We often aren’t clear enough about why, perhaps because we don’t say it bluntly enough. So here’s the difference: You are going to get old and eventually die. The government isn’t.
And lenders therefore demand that individual borrowers pay off their debts while they still have the income to do so.
Governments, on the other hand, normally see their revenues rise, generation after generation, as the economies they regulate and tax grow:
In fact, when governments for one reason or another run up large debts, it is, as far as I can tell, unusual to pay those debts off.
The most famous example, albeit one that many people apparently don’t know about, is the debt America incurred to fight World War II. By the war’s end, this debt was around 100 percent of gross domestic product — roughly comparable to the debt level today. So how did we pay off that debt?
We didn’t.
By the end of the Napoleonic Wars, the British government’s debt, according to Bank of England estimates, was 184 percent of G.D.P. — far above America’s debt at the end of World War II.. So how did Britain pay off its Napoleonic debt?
It didn’t.
In much more recent history, when governments were mistakenly pursuing fiscal austerity in the face of high unemployment, I used to accuse deficit scolds of being obsessed with Victorian virtues. I was, I now realize, being unfair to the Victorians.
So for all those whose instinct is to assume that a responsible government would, like a responsible individual, pay off its debts as soon as it can, again:
𝙂𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙣’𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚. 𝙄𝙛 𝙙𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙝 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙖𝙭𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙡𝙞𝙛𝙚, 𝙬𝙚𝙡𝙡, 𝙙𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙝 𝙞𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙜𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙖𝙭𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙩 — 𝙖 𝙜𝙧𝙤𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙩 — 𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙖 𝙡𝙞𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮.
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=116&emc=edit_pk_20230519&instance_id=92982&nl=paul-krugman&productCode=PK®i_id=16231639&segment_id=133389&te=1&uri=nyt%3A%2F%2Fnewsletter%2F02ae41d9-4b4d-5d95-afee-38d0a94fe803&user_id=85f8e7210ecfab1cfc218636352e8ddc&fbclid=IwAR2aRcuYMH_gL3HzvCWUNUPOoilhHsb3JcOIznc_bxWMNziBVBeIvrjPPq8
Thank you!
I know it seems like a really dumb reason, but I think you answered your own question: the debt ceiling exists so that the out-of-power party can complain about the budget and gum up the works. It's intentionally introduced friction, and I'm still mulling over it's usefulness. It falls in the same category as the filibuster -- why have a rule that deliberately makes it more difficult to govern? I'm not sure I'm wise enough to answer.
Nor am I. Sometimes it seems common sense should prevail more often.
Actually, they have no other goal than cutting taxes again and again for the wealthy ( some of whom said the didn’t need them) and empowering their “base”. This is not patriotism, this is suicide.
The Radicalized Extreme Court of the United States, “Rec Us” has assumed unlimited control of our laws via their “interpretations” of laws on the books for 50 years. They are literally rewriting the law by surpassing a filibustered Senate that now passes nothing at all. They are the new Super Branch of Government and cannot be voted out
Authoritarianism by default
Indeed, and as they gain more power iur democracy evaporates in a legal coup
DISAPPEARED...
That sleeping dog?
On September 10th 2001, I wrote to a friend comparing our democracies to him. And commenting: "One doubts our survival instincts".
Eleven days earlier I'd written to the same friend saying we're sleepwalkers on the edge of the abyss.
Still the same drugged sleep, still the same nightmare.
A chain reaction nightmare -- escape from one madness into another, from one Chamber of Horrors into a worse one.
Time for ten million Paul Reveres to awaken and ride!
Dear Peter,
Your apt description of our nightmare helps me know I am not alone in my terror. Thanks for that.
I do wonder if Paul could even wake us from our sleep of denial.
We are a drugged Nation. Simply overdosing on our own demise.
SCOTUS is sending a message: the majority is as Radical as the party of the presidents and the majority on the judiciary committees who chose them. They could have been out with flagpoles on January 6th. Sorry to put it in plain English, but to destroy our water and food supply in a time of climate change must have our allies trembling and Putin laughing.
Ted, this right here. I cannot fathom that wetlands, which (at least to my way of thinking) serve as the environment's digestive system in filtering and feeding the area. No, you cannot build on undrained wetlands, but they are there for an environmental reason.
Exactly. For us to be healthy, we need a healthy and diverse ecosystem. This Scutus is an abomination.
Did you read the case? The posts here are getting stupider by the minute.
The Sackett's sued the EPA over pouring dirt on their land to level it out before they built a house. The land was near a ditch, which was near creek, which was near a lake. Only a moron would think violated the EPA Clean Waters Act, let alone was an environmental hazard.
MY PROOF? The Court voted 9-0.
As a side issue, the court disagreed (5-4) going forward on the whatr constituted wetlands. There were conflicts in the statue that was causing needless litigation. The majority asked Congress to tighten up the language.
Stop being lazy and do your homework. It took me 5 minutes of homework to realize this was all BS.
Chip, chip, chip.
Precedent reset.
Seeing the wooden handle, The trees were fooled at first, mistakenly trusting the axe.
Dear Ted, please join me in reporting him (…, under his comments).
What a stupid post
Perhaps read The Clean Water Act. You’ll figure it out. Maybe.
I'm sorry but this MAY BE the stupidest LAZIEST post of ALL TIME.
Did anyone bother to read the ruling or the merits? Of course not.
Just cut and paste from Media Matters
First it was INCREDIBLY DISHONEST how you characterized the RULING.
The ruling CAME DOWN 9-0 in favor of plaintiffs Michael and Chantell Sackett, two Idaho residents whom the EPA prohibited from building a home near a wetland years ago.
"The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day," Alito's majority opinion stated. "The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as 'waters of the United States' because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not 'waters of the United States.'"
The Sackets had purchased land and were backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare to build.
The lot in question was on a ditch that fed into a a creek, which fed into a lake. Its an incredible stretch to say DIRT used to level out a lot near a ditch, near a creek, near a lake
was a violation of THE CLEAN WATERS ACT.
ONLY A MORON or a CLIMATE ACTIVIST would think so.
BY 9-0 the Court agreed.
As a separate issue the court took up the question of WATERS of the United States
As Ailito wrote "(a) The uncertain meaning of “the waters of the United States” has
been a persistent problem, sparking decades of agency action and litigation. Resolving the CWA’s applicability to wetlands requires a review of the history surrounding the interpretation of that phrase.
However, the court split 5-4 in its analysis of how the federal government should define a water source under the Clean Water Act.
"Understanding the CWA to apply to wetlands that are distinguishable from otherwise covered 'waters of the United States' would substantially broaden [existing statute] to define 'navigable waters' as 'waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands,'" Alito wrote.
“Enact exceedingly clear language” on any rules that affect private property." The majority asked Congress to clarify its language.
THIS IS YET AGAIN A MISTAKE A first year graduate wouldn't make. Your characterization
as gutting the EPA and threatening the climate IS SO DISHONEST I'm at a loss.
Its obvious that all leftist care about is sanctimonious virtue signaling. The truth is NOT a leftwing value.
Next, our national parks and protected lands. The next great sell-off of our national treasures. Soon, sell off all federal buildings and land and rent them back to the Government while that enterprise lasts. Hedge-fund mentality here? You bet. Me thinks a nice new shopping mall for the umber-rich on the site of the Canon Building, which now houses the Congress, would really be nice, he smirks.