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

Novara

(5,754 posts)
35. a total cop-out
Thu May 25, 2023, 02:55 PM
May 2023

But one based on ignorance of the science, and that's what pisses me off so much about this kind of shit.

There's no appeal. There's no way to bring in experts to testify now who can talk about why the statute is written the way it was. I don't know if they testified previously or not, but it doesn't sound like it, given their focusing on a "significant nexus" to navigable waters. It doesn't mean contiguous. It sounds like they think so, by their reasoning.

Just because they don't understand the statute doesn't mean it has to be re-written, and parts of it thrown out until it does (if it does).

It sounds like the government did not present their case well enough to get them to understand the statute, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

And the Nutters think its Democrats that want to Ruin America... RegulatedCapitalistD May 2023 #1
Ignore the pigs-in-a-blanket peppertree May 2023 #2
Brick by brick... ret5hd May 2023 #3
Creating a dystopian environmental future, repealing one EPA regulation at a time. nt OAITW r.2.0 May 2023 #4
All nine voted against the EPA. hedda_foil May 2023 #5
All nine concurred that the specific land/wetlands at issue in this case did not meet the KPN May 2023 #23
Thank you for clarifying. hedda_foil May 2023 #26
Democrats have waited long enough to add judges to the supreme court Escurumbele May 2023 #6
The Dem Justices also voted against the EPA obamanut2012 May 2023 #7
Conservatives are really good at picking the right cases The Mouth May 2023 #19
"What are they waiting for?" BumRushDaShow May 2023 #8
Better yes, how does it pass in the House? Polybius May 2023 #21
That is a given at the moment BumRushDaShow May 2023 #25
it was a unanimous descision moonshinegnomie May 2023 #10
Not exactly. The decision set aside the agency's determination that the wetland involved was KPN May 2023 #30
it was a unanimous descision moonshinegnomie May 2023 #9
How much $$$ did it cost mountain grammy May 2023 #11
different sacketts moonshinegnomie May 2023 #18
Doesn't matter. Same disease. mountain grammy May 2023 #24
All 3 liberal Justices Zeitghost May 2023 #39
Very bad decision mountain grammy May 2023 #43
There is no benefit for them in compromise Zeitghost May 2023 #45
I've learned to never argue with a 9-0 decision Polybius May 2023 #47
All 9 voted for it. Are you saying all 9 were paid? jimfields33 May 2023 #28
The court is compromised. mountain grammy May 2023 #44
Are you suggesting Zeitghost May 2023 #46
I'm suggesting that this court is compromised mountain grammy May 2023 #51
And The Clean Water Act was bipartisan and championed by Nixon... JT45242 May 2023 #12
SCOTUSblog had a link to the opinion (PDF) BumRushDaShow May 2023 #14
This court will ALWAYS side with billionaires and corporations. CousinIT May 2023 #13
And these people know noting about wetland behaviors and ecosystems Novara May 2023 #15
Well what this exposed was that the law needs to be updated BumRushDaShow May 2023 #16
instead of speculating about what a wetland is, here's the EPA's definition Novara May 2023 #27
I don't know if you read the ruling BumRushDaShow May 2023 #32
lots of hyperbole there. Novara May 2023 #33
Exactly BumRushDaShow May 2023 #34
a total cop-out Novara May 2023 #35
From what I understand, this case was brought in 2007 BumRushDaShow May 2023 #36
she's absolutely right Novara May 2023 #37
Probably because it was narrow, pretty much focused on this one property owner BumRushDaShow May 2023 #38
This is an excellent summary why this is such a horrible decision Novara May 2023 #48
Well it's actually worse than just that BumRushDaShow May 2023 #49
Agreed. And fuck knows where that will lead us. Novara May 2023 #53
VOTE ... and expand the court! KPN May 2023 #17
So 13-0 instead of 9-0? jimfields33 May 2023 #29
Maybe as regards to EPAs determination as to whether the law and its implementing regulations KPN May 2023 #31
Kavanaugh in the minority Polybius May 2023 #20
It was actually "unanimous" BumRushDaShow May 2023 #22
I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty good at reading laws and cases jgmiller May 2023 #40
I agree, jg, and may do just that, when I find the time. elleng May 2023 #42
'the remaining four -- concurred in the judgment. elleng May 2023 #41
No surprise orangecrush May 2023 #50
when the (formerly) supreme court makes a ruling Marthe48 May 2023 #52
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court rules again...»Reply #35