652 Comments

If our wetlands can not be protected, no one’s water is safe.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

It is beyond tragic that the party of extreme greed is actually willing to destroy the EPA.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

It’s not mental illness, it’s weaponized imbecility.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

The great Sigourney Weaver has a question for the room.

https://youtu.be/Ay80wwQ_e2k

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

What? Seriously, I knew they were nuts (I have 2 of them in my immediate family) but this is really really out there.

Expand full comment

It's a cult, just slower to act than Jim Jones.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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)

Expand full comment

Meanwhile, our tax dollars go to rebuild beaches in front of millionaire's houses

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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)

Expand full comment

That Idaho couple will be the first to bitch when their well water gets contaminated, I assure you.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Or they get flooded out - wetlands have a tendency to be wet - being adjacent to larger bodies of water their source of water . . .

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

I think you meant to write, “vote Democratic.”

Expand full comment

Thoroughly edited. 😊

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

And at this point the world economy!

Expand full comment

It is hard to separate wetlands from contingent waterways.

Expand full comment
May 26, 2023·edited May 26, 2023

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Which state sold of water rights to the Saudi 's to grow alfalfa to feed their horses : Arizona ???

Expand full comment

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).

Expand full comment
May 26, 2023·edited May 26, 2023

Well, they sure aren’t afraid of stupidity, are they? I keep being surprised at how often I can still be surprised.

Expand full comment

Aren’t

Expand full comment

The families that the SCOTUS majority ultimately works for figure that their money will insulate then from any unpleasant outcomes

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

the conservative justices serve Leonard Leo and his cabal not the United States

l

Expand full comment

Exactly! The conservative justices of SCOTUS are nothing but lackeys of Leo and his Federalist Society.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Please call them “Radical.” They are not conservative. “Conservatives” conserve. Radicals destroy. Keep thinking of the French mob and that of January 6th.

Expand full comment

100%

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

We know that one of them has a string of young children.

Expand full comment
May 26, 2023·edited May 26, 2023

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Wow, i’m 75 and have no children either. And sadly, I’ve often been thankful for that. Today is one of those days.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

I wish we were neighbors. I'd like very much to sit and talk over a cup of coffee with you. Be well.

Expand full comment

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.)

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

They understand. They simply do not care.

Expand full comment

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!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Oh they f**king just think they can pray, and their children and grandchildren will be fine.

Expand full comment

Once again the majority on the so-called but hardly “Supreme” Court not only promote pro business etc rulings

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

They are not conservatives, they are radicals. That’s the problem. It’s misused language, a tool of the Far Right.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63709446

Stewart Rhodes' son: ‘How I escaped my father’s militia’ - BBC News

Expand full comment

Thanks for sharing Susan, there is hope for these peoples minds being saved.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Indeed, the irony of it all, right wing cherry picking!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

Well said!

Expand full comment

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. 😱☠️

Expand full comment

And thank you for “radical.”

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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?!

Expand full comment

Because they can.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

But Russia doesn't care, and they are pulling the Reoubliconned strings.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Wait until they declare that federal environmental law preempts state law, I'm sure that's part of their wish list.

Expand full comment

That is encouraging. We need to band together to defeat these ignorant tyrants now.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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&regi_id=16231639&segment_id=133389&te=1&uri=nyt%3A%2F%2Fnewsletter%2F02ae41d9-4b4d-5d95-afee-38d0a94fe803&user_id=85f8e7210ecfab1cfc218636352e8ddc&fbclid=IwAR2aRcuYMH_gL3HzvCWUNUPOoilhHsb3JcOIznc_bxWMNziBVBeIvrjPPq8

Expand full comment

Thank you!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Nor am I. Sometimes it seems common sense should prevail more often.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

Exactly. The Disgraced Roberts Court is acing as a super legislature without any checks or balances. The laughable fact that Thomas can remain on the court after egregious failures of ethics and violations of Federal law has completely delegitimized it.

Expand full comment

Indeed, and as they gain more power iur democracy evaporates in a legal coup

Expand full comment
May 26, 2023·edited May 26, 2023

DISAPPEARED...

Expand full comment

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!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Exactly. For us to be healthy, we need a healthy and diverse ecosystem. This Scutus is an abomination.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Chip, chip, chip.

Precedent reset.

Seeing the wooden handle, The trees were fooled at first, mistakenly trusting the axe.

Expand full comment

Dear Ted, please join me in reporting him (…, under his comments).

Expand full comment

What a stupid post

Expand full comment

Perhaps read The Clean Water Act. You’ll figure it out. Maybe.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

SCROTUS, what a nightmare

Expand full comment

SCOTUS is so backwards thinking and FRUSTRATING!! I just wanna scream.

Thanks so much Heather for all your efforts. They are not wasted.

Expand full comment

That's not backwards thinking. It's aggressive right-wing agenda. It's getting rapidly worse.

Expand full comment

The radically aggressive right wing agenda is taking the US back to the Gilded Age. Robber barons have always needed to be held in check, or their sociopathic greed would stomp all over everyone else. No one thinks they are entitled like the rich.

Expand full comment

You're so right.

Expand full comment

And I hate it.

Expand full comment

It's as if these idiot justices flunked science class in high school. But we know the real truth, don't we? They have been bought by the Oligarchs who rule this country.

Expand full comment

They have indeed. And they will destroy us all without batting an eye. Not just us but every living thing that gets in their way.

Expand full comment

The concept of freedom in this country is being morphed by the Republicans and the right wing SCOTUS majority. Equal treatment under the law and the principle that personal freedoms extend only so far as the point where they impinge on another's freedoms and well-being is being thrown out of the window. It is occurring across a wide front--restrictions on what can be taught, how people can dress, books being banned, regulations to protect health and safety of the population as a whole, restrictions on voting, access to healthcare and bodily autonomy in the case of abortion aaccess and gender affirming care, and even the institution of laws in red states elevating Christianity as a state religion.

Every day there is new evidence of the erosion of freedom in this country. For every win like the Stewart Rhodes conviction and sentencing there are broader counterbalancing losses like the gutting of the ability of the EPA to protect all of us in the name of dismantling hte administrative "deep state."

The concept of freedom is being distorted and perverted as Republicans are pushing the advantage they have crafted over the past 40 years to gerrymander and adjudicate themselves into minority rule and to obliterate the concept of one person, one vote.

The bullies are acting with impunity almost unchecked at this point. And there is no real freedom where bullies rule.

Expand full comment

Bullies, and that is exactly what they are, have sociopathically tried to rule the world for eons. Freedom is a product of good faith, solidarity, and keeping them at bay. I think we all harbor Jekyll and Hyde to some degree, so the problem is never defeated for good; but we can battle abuses of power in the short term and cultivate awareness and empathy as a protective strategy into the future. It is clear we have come to a point of crisis. Technology amplifies our our power to do, and can be helpful and healing, or predatory.

Expand full comment

JL GRAHAM, wise words for today and everyday.

I am so grateful for President Joe Biden and the generous attitude he demonstrates even as he is unfairly lied about and condemned. We could not have a better, wise, compassionate and experienced person as our leader.

It has also been great to see seasoned leadership as well as new and upcoming younger leaders, within the Democratic Party, taking more responsibility for governing and building up our nation, with the support and guidance of their seniors.

We must vote, we must serve in anyway we are able, we must kindly and respectfully speak truth to our friends with clarity. These are dangerous days. Our enemy is powerful and "hungry for MORE!" Our enemy is not kind and polite but rather is seeking unbridled control that includes all the riches of this country (including our wetlands) and the souls of its people.

This enemy is literally everywhere. For instance, I was looking for a book for my grandaughter....the books were in the Christian section.....both were compiled/written by young women who were in Trump's administration. I was horrified! ....needless to say I did NOT buy those books.....but sad to say the "wrong"wing of our government has /is brainwashing so many who are not able to think on their own.......the ropes of totalitarianism are tightening.......WE CAN NOT SLEEP!!!!!

Expand full comment
May 26, 2023·edited May 26, 2023

Ok. So what do we do? If power begets more power how does it stop before it has total control. Government contracts will be issued only to those that are compliant and complicit with those in power. Voting laws and gerrymandering become instituted to make sure those that win elections are those the extremist want to be elected. The USA will “look” like a Democracy because there is voting but the outcome will be rigged. Laws (some already in place) will require Christian “values” be implemented in every government agency, school, etc you name it. The Christian right wing” SCOTUS judges in the majority has begun to legislate from the bench and will continue to do so. As all these continue to manifest Democracy in the USA will be lost. Illiberal Democracy/ Christian Democracy like that in Hungary will be here. It’s already well on it’s way there here in the USA. So what do we do? Expressing our concerns, venting our frustrations here and other places online is all well and good, we need to have a place to unload the emotional impact of current events, but other than it offering some momentary relief, that’s all it is, momentary relief. It’s good to know we are among other of like mind but where do we go from here. What do we do? It’s looking more and more line the Christian Nationalists are slowly but surely taking over our country. The slow moving coup of the right wing Christian extremists that’s been underway for years is taking over, state governments, state courts, state voting, state laws, state legislative bodies, and the federal government legislative bodies (Congress and the Senate) and federal courts are moving in this direction too, and have been for years. So what do we do? If the system becomes more and more rigged for the right wing extremists/ christian nationalists, what if anything can we do?

Expand full comment

Well put. I fret over this daily. Tired of complaining how bad things are. Few seem to care. I've been on the streets protesting. Pitiful turn outs. I've gone to DC to protest. Again, pitiful turnouts. I've gone door to door in voter drives. Ineffectual. I'm discouraged. I know that's what they are counting on. But when you put in all the time and effort -- both physically and emotionally -- and no one pays attention (especially the "media", which is failing us as well) it's disheartening to say the least.

The oligarchs have been very successful in dividing Americans against each other. The only path I see forward is to start talking about the fact that it's not about right versus left, but rather the wealthy and powerful against the rest of us. That is the only message I see a chance of getting through. Maybe even that isn't enough and our American Democracy is doomed. So sad.

And why isn't Biden getting on national telvision and addressing the Nation about the debt ceiling? A bit of leadership would be heartening.

Expand full comment

Joe needs to do exactly that. Time for some "fireside chats" with clear, irrefutable facts. Thanks Dan Stipe for your activist protests, and never be frustrated for doing something to create social change. And Voting.

Expand full comment

Professor Richardson should be hired by the DNC to write them for Joe.

Expand full comment

This really resonates with me and I have been thinking along these same line all morning. Perhaps one of the creepiest parts of these right wing is their supposed allegiance to “Christian values.” They make a bullying mockery of Christianity and try to force it down our throats. This will be an ugly battle, but one worth fighting.

Expand full comment

When South Carolina passed the 6-week abortion ban, articles declared lawsuits will surely follow. I thought about the religious organizations whose laws protect a women's right to choose. The Episcopal Church is one of them. What if those denominations banded together to bring legal action challenging laws that deny our religious freedoms? Right now we are all forced to comply with Catholic doctrine, superseding many other faiths. Legal actions by organizations powerful enough to stand their ground and win might be worth a try.

Expand full comment

So few Americans seem to understand the “faith” of our Founding Fathers. Maybe some would look up “Deists” and “deism” to get some understanding of the “science” that gave US democracy. It was freedom from being ruled as the Radical Republicans of today want to rule. (Of course we had the Puritans too. They seem ascendant today.)

Expand full comment

Exactly.

Expand full comment
May 26, 2023·edited May 26, 2023

Wilbur’s SCROTUS is the penisultimate! (To be anatomically accurate, Sotomayor, Kegan, and Jackson are not pricks.)

Expand full comment

I have loved using SCROTUS. To those who say that my junior high brain is in overdrive, I say that it simply stands for Supreme Court (Reactionary) of the United States.

Expand full comment

Ally How many SCROTUS justices does it take to screw the American public? Five with another one to tighten the screw.

Expand full comment

Please watch your language. De Sanctimonious will come for you if de Trump doesn’t get you first.🤣

Expand full comment

Virginia I’m shaaaaaking in my walker with cane raised high (or low?).

Expand full comment

Keep your cane raised midway.....a whackamole to the masculine midsection! Or in the case of MTG, Kari Lake, etc, the feminine midsection equally targeted. Darn, forgot Boebert

Expand full comment

Becoming too many to count or imagine disastrous consequences of absurd actions....

Expand full comment

Great name, Wil!

Expand full comment

Is this why Neil Gorsuch was put on the court? His mother's revenge.

Expand full comment

Yes. Agree. They are becoming a domestic terrorist group of sorts.

Expand full comment
May 26, 2023·edited May 26, 2023

It's hard to grasp how a Supreme Court could systematically dismantle prior court rulings, laws, and regulations that have been in place for a half-century. The overturning of Roe vs. Wade was, of course, the court's signature blow to long-established rights and freedoms. And now a majority of justices are turning the clock back once again, this time gutting a key aspect of environmental regulations protecting waterways.

Having grown up mostly in Florida and basked in its water-everywhere wonders as a child and adult, I have a deep appreciation for wetlands, including how they protect us in many ways. The ruling, typical of this court, is arcane and shows no concern for what's at stake at a time when the planet and its people are under dire threat from climate change.

Clean water is a gift that makes Earth livable for all of its inhabitants. What makes it legal for a private property owner to destroy something so essential to us all? And if this court insists on Congress enacting rules and regulations rather than agencies of the executive branch, we know where we're headed.

Expand full comment

Florida fertilizer industry is destroying Florida’s aquifer with toxic waste from massively leaking pools of its toxic waste and with millions of gallons of its hydrofluosilisic acid we add to 70% of the public water in the U.S.

Expand full comment

Repubs listened to Rachel Carson, now they have no ears for any but the ones who tried to smear her with the most egregious lies. Be very afraid

Expand full comment

And by extension the sugar cartel, which even today gets protections from Uncle Sam.

I, too, grew up in Florida, back in the good old days, before 6 gillion people moved in, in the name of 'progress', but after the Army Corp of Engineers had redesigned much of South Florida to suit farmers and other business interests. In cutting those canals, they also cut the Everglades ability to regulate itself, but they didn' know or care about that. I suspect that a peat fire that was burning when I left in 1971 is still burning...................

Expand full comment

“Roads in Florida could soon include phosphogypsum — a radioactive waste material from the fertilizer industry — under a bill lawmakers have sent to Gov. Ron DeSantis.”

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1174789570/florida-roads-radioactive-paving-phosphogypsum

Expand full comment

What could possibly go wrong???? Unbelievable…oh wait, they’re doing it.

Expand full comment

Thanks for the article.🙏

Expand full comment

Why would anyone do that? Floridians have been given the gift of beauty and they are destroying it for their own personal amusement. That is sickening.

Expand full comment

Not to mention the sugar industry's devastation of the Everglades. Or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers straightening the Kissimmee River, turning it into a canal — a grievous mistake now being corrected. https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Media/Images/igphoto/2001001716/

Expand full comment

That is so beautiful to see. A river enabled to reclaim it's rightful path, with room to adapt as currents change. Soon the riparian zone and flood plain will repair itself, recreating the flood protection and filtering properties of a healthy riverine systems

Expand full comment

That is so sad 😞

Expand full comment

We visit Florida regularly to visit my wife's family. The canals that at one time teemed with dolphins and manatees are cesspools. The Banana and Indian Rivers are an entirely different color than a few years ago. The stench from fish die outs is overwhelming some years. As I understand it, construction of locks for cruise and container ships prevent the normal ebb and flow of the ocean - which used to flush the system. Now, all that fertilizer runoff just sits and creates algae blooms, removing oxygen from the water as well as poisoning everything.

If the Extreme Court wanted to do something positive for the planet rather than filling the pockets of their puppeteers, they would hear cases suing the corporate monsters who are killing our environment - for profit.

Expand full comment

The residents don't notice?

Expand full comment

Of course! But Florida is run by developers and large corporations who have had a free reign forever. People want their food cheap and lawns green. Which means they use and produce a lot of fertilizer. Which kills fish and all manner of aquatic life.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Our family is in Cocoa, Merritt Island and Melbourne. Your memories are beautifully expressed. With every visit, the waters seem worse. Sad.

Expand full comment

Beautiful, Michael. Thank you.

Expand full comment

They want to go back to feudalism. Perhaps the "Dark Ages".

Expand full comment

At least, the "Dark Ages" had a much newer and more resilient planet to live on.

One planet - none other...

Expand full comment

Not much newer, but less used up. I am reminded of some of the emails that came to light in the Subprime Crash, that some in ill-fated banks knew that the ice was getting thin, but could not bear to mess with such a profitable con game.

Expand full comment

It's called the Dark Ages because the light of Rome went out, and there's very little written record from the period. But I guarantee they were far more enlightened than the GOP.

Expand full comment

This is true, Holly. The renaissance grew out of the freedom of the so-called "Dark Ages", which gave people the flexibility to experiment, recreate, and begin other ways of existing. I'm not an expert on that era, but one of my daughters is, and she says that ordinary people had more freedom and were more creative then than the times before or after. Our histories tend to focus on written records and on the lives of prominant people, but as we all know, the real progress grows out of regular folks.

Expand full comment

This Court is trying to tell Congress what to do. It's gross overreach.

Expand full comment

You are so right, the right wing justices are appointing themselves and what they represent into an ideological reversal of what has been established law for over two generations. The political alignment is patently obvious. This is open warfare, without a doubt.

Expand full comment

Arcane is just the word I have been searching for all morning. There is something seriously wrong with these people. I am an artist, a gardener, a hiker, a teacher, a mother and now a grandmother. I can’t imagine having so little concern for people, the , environment, and the amazing plants and creatures we share our planet with. These people have no sense of awe , wonder,or humility. This is as dangerous as it is ugly.

Expand full comment

It's remarkable and tragic how much damage Trump and McConnell have wrought by packing the Supreme Court. At least two of the appointments shouldn't have been theirs to make,

Expand full comment

Rhodes is going away for 18+ years and I couldn’t be happier except, it should’ve been longer. This horrible specimen of a man is getting what is coming to him. In fact, he might need another patch for his other eye. The horrors his ex-wife and children lived through are enough to make you regurgitate. His cohorts will be sentenced also. I cry no tears for them but will dance upon their graves whenever that time comes, no matter how old I am. The same goes for Trump and Company. May they all reap the benefits that Tarrio and Rhodes just received.

No negotiations on debt ceiling. Certainly, one can not reason with irrational people such as the Freedom Caucus. DeSantis is a joke, a dunce. He will pardon people “aggressively”? There should not be any chances that lil’ Hitler will win a nomination. Nor should Trump. He belongs behind many bars.

Expand full comment

They are courting the evil, and will do anything to win. They will pardon all who should be jailed, and jail all their enemies. I’m sure a list has already been made.

Expand full comment

Marlene I think what Elmer needs is treatment more than damnation. His family had to live with the paranoia inherent in someone with manic fantasies of power and being a "savior." He needed to control everyone he could to prop up a worldview wrapped around his perceived role which would allow him to fend off the possibility that he may actually have had an episodic mental illness. Those with bipolar disorder frequently if not characteristically reject any notion that their feelings are the result of illness and regularly resist treatment or discontinue treatment once begun. It will be interesting to see if some treatment can materialize within the confines of incarceration. It is not for nothing that his son Dakota used the words "manic activity" throughout his descriptions of home life with Elmer. (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63709446)

Expand full comment

Well, Elmer may have lost his mind and his family, but at least he could still buy weapons. But oh no, he's a felon now! The poor man has lost his 2nd Amendment rights, too, the very definition of a powerless white American male. So sad, now he'll just have to serve as an inspiration for the next generation of "freedom fighters" while his bipolar ass rots in prison. (Sorry, but I had to relieve an excess of snark, my supply was getting too high.)

Expand full comment

There certainly are times that the pressure valve of snark needs to be relieved. Always good to note when you're doing that. My lapses into "inappropriate language/comparisons are usually blamed on my junior high brain. I have learned to acknowledge that so that my sarcasm does not create a sarchasm into which people fall.

Expand full comment

Nice pun, Ally. Much appreciated.

Expand full comment

I suspect our current corrupt SCROTUS will overturn any prohibition against felons buying guns. Wait for it.

Expand full comment

No apologies necessary 😊

Expand full comment

That’s quite an article. I hope we outlive the fear, paranoia, and violence of the right wing. Somehow we must. What a journe the Rhodes family has been on. DT has brought out the very worst in everyone.

Expand full comment

Rhodes estranged father was a Marine who left the family when Rhodes was 3 years old.

Expand full comment

0 to 5 is a critical period for full adult development. Interesting that Clarence Thomas suffered similar abandonment olb y his father at a very young age. I wonder what other aspects of childhood trauma they share?

Expand full comment

That’s sad but it doesn’t make up for the suffering he’s caused others.

Expand full comment

Beautifully said and I agree. There is a lot seriously wrong with these people.

Expand full comment

I am terrified by what the “Supreme“ Court is doing. Are we heading towards a very Un-united States of America?

Expand full comment

Week after week the “Supremes” roll back one or more legislative improvement that enabled our Government to improve the quality of American life! Our only potential remedy is to add 4 more fair-minded justices. We have to work hard-- each of us who are reading Dr. Heather-- to persuade all eligible 18s to 25s and all eligible women 25 to 44 to register and to turn out in 2024! Please go to www.turnup.us/ and contribute: please....

Expand full comment

Ira, While I engage regularly with Gen-Zs and Millennials, I would note, relative to the Presidential election, that the Republican nominee currently need only block Biden from receiving 270 electoral votes to become president. As I expect we all know, if no one reaches 270, the decision moves to the House, wherein Republicans presently control more state delegations than Democrats, each of which would get one vote. Accordingly, because the next Congress would decide the election, we must start identifying delegations that are flippable, particularly seeing that the “No Label” purported bipartisan third party is receiving enormous amounts of dark money from Republican PACs. I mention this, because, aside from galvanizing the youth vote, we need to be excessively strategic at the federal, state, and local levels if we’re to out-organize Republicans, whose tactics for securing minority rule over the will of the majority have been discerningly effective.

Expand full comment

Imagine our frustration here in Wisconsin, where we have been living in a severely gerrymandered regime. The balance of power on the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently shifted to a "liberal" majority, so we have at least a glimmer of hope that election fairness can be restored soon. Most of our Republicans don't have anything interesting to say, but they are adept at trickery and deceit. They are very proud of themselves for being able to thwart the will of the majority of voters at the district level -- they dominate both chambers of the legislature, despite getting fewer popular votes in statewide races. We keep hoping the Democrats will figure out ways to persuade rural and small-town voters to stop voting for the Republicans.

Expand full comment

David, I can imagine your frustration, and, while I’m probably stating the obvious, I would press Democrats to invest more in rural and small-town communities, to the point people really sense they are being listened to and, hence, come to trust that Democrats, contrary to their counterparts, also will fight hard to remedy legitimate grievances felt by those who too often are the victims of our system’s unevenly distributed resources.

Expand full comment

Barbara. wish I could shout your comment from the rooftops. But in lieu of that, I encourage all those reading to watch this clip from Beau of the Fifth Column. This is exactly what you are talking about! He's had several clips lately about Democrats messaging!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYUDl8Em-Dg

Expand full comment

When I go to this link, I get something called The Young Turks.

Expand full comment

I’m sure that this tactic is the republican “go to.” Chump, etc never let a good way to screw our democracy go to waste. This is as important a comment as I have seen anywhere…

Expand full comment
May 26, 2023·edited May 26, 2023

Jeri, I deeply appreciate hearing that my comment struck a chord.

Expand full comment

Precisely on point Barbara. Please repeat this message over and over.

Expand full comment

@D4N, Thank you for writing. Admittedly, one of my reasons for posting was the hope that together we’d spread the word.

Expand full comment

At the end of the day, Barbara, nothing really matters except what you and Ira have just said. Our hope lies in actual strategy. While this forum is full of legitimate complaints (my whining included), the only thing that matters is outvoting the fascist madness.

Expand full comment