myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
9-0 decision against the EPA!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 3630

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

keycocker wrote:
By the way Bard and iso are not buddies. That was uncalled for.
Bard and Bush were not buddies either.


Right! They are both radioactive Laughing

You are correct again techno. Somehow the $37,500 per day number comes up in many epa rules. This was probably the number that they figured would get anyone to stop doing something, but not enough to hire an attorney to fight. PERFECT TERROR WHERE THE PEASANT REMAINS THE PEASANT and the govt overlord makes up the rules as he sees fit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5479

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's important to remember the nature and extent of the Supreme Court ruling in this matter. In a future court case, the Sacketts could still lose. Time will tell who is right on this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4673

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Any time the Supreme Court decides something unanimously it is important, and it is especially important to know what they said, and why. If you trust the research skills of Bard and his favorite reactionary web sites you will stop reading now; you leave in a faith-based world, not one of facts. But if you are interested in what happened, and what the court said, read on.

Of course, primary research is best, and you can read the fairly short opinion for yourself here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf

Or you can read a pretty balanced summary here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/us/supreme-court-allows-lawsuit-in-epa-wetlands-case.html

Here from Scalia's opinion is the scope of the decision:

Quote:
Today we consider only whether the dispute may be brought to court by challenging the compliance orderówe do not resolve the dispute on the merits.


I agree with the decision, and it is important to understand the factual basis--and where the authority came from. The Sackett's own a property near Priest Lake in Idaho (not, of course, the moutainside that Bard originally described. Silly, silly Bard.) They had place fill on their 2/3 acre property and EPA issued a compliance order requiring them to remove the fill or face a daily fine. Congress had given EPA authority to enforce the Clean Water Act administratively through orders, rather than going to court for enforcement, and this was at issue in this decision. It matters not in the decision whether the property is wetland in fact, or the Sackett's knew it was wetland. EPA had required them to remove the fill, rather than allow them to apply to the Corps of Engineers for a permit. The Sackett's wanted to challenge EPA in court on the question of whether or not it was a wetland rather than spend money to remove the fill and subsequently find out the area in question was not a wetland, or the fill could be permitted. EPA took the position that the Sackett's could only challenge a final decision, a Corps permit, and that they had to remove the fill first. The court said that EPA over-reached. I agree.

The question of whether the property is wetland in fact, and whether the fill that occurred could be permitted will now be tested in court. The Supreme Court, as noted by Scalia, did not take a position on that question. If the area was wetland and does not receive a permit, the Sackett's may still be required to remove the fill and restore the property. But they don't have to do that before they get their day in court.

It would be interesting if the righties actually showed some understanding of either the law or the decisions. But like I said, living in a fact-free, faith based world. Head in the sand like an ostrich, or in another orifice?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 13315

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
Why are we talking about wetlands?

Please don't tell me one of these politically savvy guys isn't aware of the EPA's wetlands abuses. Next you'll be sayin' they don't know about eminent domain abuses, or school kids being forced to pool their pencils and paper, or Ted Stephens' fraudulent prosecution, or that Limbaugh did NOT make racist comments about Donovan McNabb, and on
and on
and on.

Their excuse that "Well, MSNBC said so" is as hollow as "But, officer, I was drunk. It's not MY fault I killed that family."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MULLDE102f



Joined: 15 Jun 1997
Posts: 76

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isobars is really veering off the rails. I'm a little worried about him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2366

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MULLDE102f wrote:
Isobars is really veering off the rails. I'm a little worried about him.

No, no.

No worries -- just enjoy the show.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MULLDE102f



Joined: 15 Jun 1997
Posts: 76

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, good advice. I'll grab a bowl of popcorn...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3035

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stephens was prosecuted by his GOP peers during the Bush years. The case was dropped by Holder, Obamas AG when a report showed that Bushs people mishandled the case.
Everything Bush ever did is being blamed on O by ignorant partisans.
The problem is that when iso hears the truth he puts a bag over his head amd begims sceaming " I cant hear anything, i cant hear anything.
Here is his chance to say" I was wrong" and get back a shred of dignity.


Last edited by keycocker on Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:10 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1849

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reminds me a bit of watching blindfolded kids going after a pennata.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5479

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Reminds me a bit of watching blindfolded kids going after a pennata."


You're so right. They can be furious and dedicated in the effort, but too little avail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group