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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
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]BumRushDaShow
(128,934 posts)32. I don't know if you read the ruling
(I added the link in the OP (PDF) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf)
But first, let me add that I'm not "surprised" by anything the SCOTUS does at this point...
However you have this in the (main) ruling -
(snip)
The majority thus altersmore pre-
cisely, narrows the scope ofthe statute Congress drafted. And make no mistake: Congress wrote the statute it
meant to. The Clean Water Act was a landmark piece of
environmental legislation, designed to address a problem of
crisis proportions.
(snip)
Todays majority, though, believes Congress went too far.
In the majoritys view, the Act imposes unjustifiably crush-
ing consequences for violations of its terms. Ante, at 3.
And many of those violations, it thinks, are of no real con-
cern, arising from mundane land-use conduct like mov-
ing dirt. Ante, at 13. Congress, the majority scolds, has
unleashed the EPA to regulate swimming pools[ ] and pud-
dles, wreaking untold havoc on a staggering array of land-
owners. Ante, at 1, 13. Surely something has to be done;
and who else to do it but this Court? It must rescue prop-
erty owners from Congresss too-ambitious program of pol-
lution control.
So the majority shelves the usual rules of interpreta-
tionreading the text, determining what the words used
there mean, and applying that ordinary understanding
4 SACKETT v. EPA
K AGAN, J., concurring in judgment
even if it conflicts with judges policy preferences.
The majority thus altersmore pre-
cisely, narrows the scope ofthe statute Congress drafted. And make no mistake: Congress wrote the statute it
meant to. The Clean Water Act was a landmark piece of
environmental legislation, designed to address a problem of
crisis proportions.
(snip)
Todays majority, though, believes Congress went too far.
In the majoritys view, the Act imposes unjustifiably crush-
ing consequences for violations of its terms. Ante, at 3.
And many of those violations, it thinks, are of no real con-
cern, arising from mundane land-use conduct like mov-
ing dirt. Ante, at 13. Congress, the majority scolds, has
unleashed the EPA to regulate swimming pools[ ] and pud-
dles, wreaking untold havoc on a staggering array of land-
owners. Ante, at 1, 13. Surely something has to be done;
and who else to do it but this Court? It must rescue prop-
erty owners from Congresss too-ambitious program of pol-
lution control.
So the majority shelves the usual rules of interpreta-
tionreading the text, determining what the words used
there mean, and applying that ordinary understanding
4 SACKETT v. EPA
K AGAN, J., concurring in judgment
even if it conflicts with judges policy preferences.
The "political" part was hyperbole nonsense about "swimming pools", but the part about "interpretation" is why there needs to be some revisions to the Act.
I.e., they (the conservatives) are swatting aside the "Regulations" (which are put in place by those agencies that are covered under the Act and that "interpret" what the law is so they can develop statutory guidelines), and are going back to the "literal" Act itself.
So on one hand, they are saying that they want that type of stuff spelled out in the actual law and not "interpreted" by an agency, but on the other hand, they are also attributing the "interpretations" to what they believe are eco-fanatics going overboard.
And people wonder why legislation is thousands of pages long.
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