Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Supreme Court rules against EPA in dispute over regulating wetlands [View all]KPN
(15,587 posts)31. Maybe as regards to EPAs determination as to whether the law and its implementing regulations
applied to this specific case. But not in the larger context, that in order for the Clean Water Act to apply, a specific wetland must have a continuous surface connection to larger, regulated bodies of water. In other words, the Court amended the existing law to stipulate this specific criterion. On this piece, concurrence was only 5-4 with Kavanaugh siding with the minority. A 13 member court may well have voted 5-8 on and rejected this this second piece.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
53 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Supreme Court rules against EPA in dispute over regulating wetlands [View all]
BumRushDaShow
May 2023
OP
Creating a dystopian environmental future, repealing one EPA regulation at a time. nt
OAITW r.2.0
May 2023
#4
All nine concurred that the specific land/wetlands at issue in this case did not meet the
KPN
May 2023
#23
Not exactly. The decision set aside the agency's determination that the wetland involved was
KPN
May 2023
#30
Probably because it was narrow, pretty much focused on this one property owner
BumRushDaShow
May 2023
#38