Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, October 04, 2022

Several conservative justices expressed concern about the law's broad reach. The court's liberals seemed focused on finding a compromise.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"This case is going to be important for wetlands throughout the country, and we have to get it right," Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said

Sounds like he's already put more thought into this decision than he did Dobbs.

#1 | Posted by qcp at 2022-10-04 01:14 PM | Reply

The Right To Pollute is perhaps the white man's most cherished value.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-10-04 01:16 PM | Reply

The Court now views itself as an arm of the R party and they hate the Clean Water Act. So it's likely they will gut it any way they can.

#3 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2022-10-04 02:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"The justices agreed in January to look again at the case involving Michael and Chantell Sackett, who previously prevailed at the Supreme Court in their effort to build a home near Priest Lake, one of the state's largest. The Environmental Protection Agency says there are wetlands on the couple's 0.63-acre lot, which makes it subject to the Clean Water Act"

LMAO @ Snoofy

I'm pulling Yav's Heavyweight Drama Queen title and giving it to Snoofy.

#4 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-10-04 04:38 PM | Reply

Riiiight.

Because their ruling is going to be limited to 0.63 acres of the United States.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-10-04 04:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

You can't expect any critical thinking from people who took ivermectin to combat a virus.

This is today's America. Brain dead Republicans vs the rest of the country.

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-10-04 04:53 PM | Reply

"This case is going to be important for wetlands throughout the country, and we have to get it right," Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said

SCOTUS isn't supposed to be outcome-oriented, but it's cute to watch Boof pretend he cares about wetlands before voting to destroy them.

#7 | Posted by JOE at 2022-10-04 05:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#1 | Posted by qcp

That is lip service. He will do what his masters bid.

#8 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2022-10-04 05:18 PM | Reply

#4 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Having studied this stuff while in college as part of my degree, wetlands are of huge importance. Go ahead and fight whether they are wetlands or not but wetlands must be protected as part of the clean air and water act. Wetlands have huge impact on clean water.

Besides any fool that wants to build on wetlands deserves having their house collapse. I helped a couple people with grandfathered cottages back in the day redoing their footings. The were built close to a lake and their footings just did not last. Their cottages were twisted every which way.

#9 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2022-10-04 05:24 PM | Reply

This case falls into my wheelhouse of expertise and can say that the conservatives are dancing with an unmitigated environmental disaster in the long run.

Wetlands serve MANY purposes-stormwater retention, ecological habitat, water cleansing, flooding mitigation. And wetlands are not just those obvious swamps directly abutting streams and rivers and such. You would be surprised where wetlands exist.

But go ahead and fill them (cause that is what is being argued-to fill wetlands or wetland transition areas) to permit construction.

You will learn that stormwater and surface water don't give an F*** about your political persuasion. You see there is a finite quantity of water that doesn't change too dramatically in toto-sometimes it is in the ground, sometimes in the oceans, sometimes in the air, sometimes in clouds. But generally speaking, that volume doesn't vary too much-depends on how much water people have been drinking.

And here is the kicker if you fill an area where water is that water will go elsewhere. That is a fundamental law of physics. You can't get around it.

So, you fill wetlands, even the wetlands remote from a water body, not obvious ones and what happens? The water in that wetland does not magically disappear, it MOVES and the water that fed the wetlands is diverted around the wetlands. So, the downstream water body receives MORE water, quicker, with less filtering. That is an immutable fact. So, the downstream water body receives MORE water and more pollutants and get this MORE silt, cause the wetlands was preventing erosion (another concept forgotten by lawyers). So, the downstream water body fills up faster resulting more flooding.

So, yeah, filling wetlands is a really bad idea.

Problem is that in many areas buildable virgin land is dwindling-you know from population growth and less attractive land is eyed for development, but again- BAD IDEA

#10 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-10-04 05:48 PM | Reply

When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. And that one sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, and then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Son, the strongest castle in all of England.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-10-04 06:04 PM | Reply

wetlands are of huge importance

True, but this case isn't about "all wetlands". Sites with the soils, hydrology, and vegetation to be classified as "wetlands" and with a significant nexus to actual Navigable waters are not the focus here.

This has always been about the EPA and Corp of Engineers attempting to over-reach their authority by claiming jurisdiction over isolated "low" spots or ------- ephemeral streams that can often be miles from anything considered statutorily "navigable". Nobody should have to get a 404 Permit to put in a culvert over a dry bar ditch, but that's exactly what these -------- try to do. We've been living with Rappanos for 15+ years. Hopefully the court comes up with something better.

#12 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-10-04 06:06 PM | Reply

Hopefully the court comes up with something better.

#12 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

Right. Because the ideologically unbalanced Supreme Court Justices are such experts on wetland management and watershed management and they are so much better and smarter than any stupid engineer who has spent decades learning about it and dealing with it.

#13 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-10-04 06:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Supreme Court Justices are such experts on wetland management and watershed management

No, but they're not being asked to apply any expertise on the matter.

They're being asked to interpret the law as it pertains to defining what is a jurisdictional "Water of the United States".

#14 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-10-04 06:31 PM | Reply

"Sites with the soils, hydrology, and vegetation to be classified as "wetlands" and with a significant nexus to actual Navigable waters are not the focus here."

And what portion of wetlands feature a significant nexus to actual navigable waters?

Just ballpark it for us.

Thanks.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-10-04 06:34 PM | Reply

"Hopefully the court comes up with something better."

You're literally hoping for them to legislate from the bench...

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-10-04 06:35 PM | Reply

And what portion of wetlands feature a significant nexus to actual navigable waters?

Most wetlands do. They're adjacent to streams, within a floodplain, connected by perennial waterways, etc.

You're literally hoping for them to legislate from the bench...

No, Dumbass. I'm hoping they interpret the ------- CWA as written. That's what they do.

#17 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-10-04 06:43 PM | Reply

"I'm hoping they interpret the ------- CWA as written. That's what they do."

Haven't they tried like three times already?

To your point, Congress should just protect wetlands explicitly.

The knowledge we have of ecology is probably 100x to 10,000x more than we had when Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-10-04 06:46 PM | Reply

"They're adjacent to streams"

Streams are navigable waters?

What is this, a navigable water for ants?

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-10-04 06:47 PM | Reply

To your point, Congress should just protect wetlands explicitly.

Your -------- opinion on what Congress "should" do is noted.

Meanwhile, there is legislation called the "Clean Water Act" applicable to Waters of the US. Is an ephemeral stream or bar ditch 10 miles from the nearest navigable waterway really a JWOUS as the bureaucrats wish it to be?

We shall see.

#20 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-10-04 06:52 PM | Reply

Streams are navigable waters?

Many are. Yes-----Or they have a significant hydrological connection (i.e. they're a direct tributary) to a bigger stream that is statutorily navigable, which makes them jurisdictional.

#21 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-10-04 06:54 PM | Reply

Haven't they tried like three times already?

They have. And for many years it was thought that Justice Kennedy put this ---- to bed with his test in Rappanos.

The problem is when you start instilling ideologue activist -------- in positions of power at agencies like EPA and USACE they begin to promulgate rules that circumvent what the court has previously decreed so they can grab more power.

So here we are.

#22 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-10-04 06:58 PM | Reply

I left the onshore/domestic part of this world almost 10 years ago, but I do remember this case a bit. Their lot is a boggy area with no surface water connection to the lake nearby. The EPA argued the nexus was a subsurface hydrological connection. However, the gradient flowed towards their property from the lake. That poked a big hole in the question as to whether their gravel-filling truly had any significant impact to the "chemical, physical, or biological integrity" of the adjacent lake as the CWA states it must before such a site is considered jurisdictional.

I wish they could bring Justice Kennedy out of retirement for this one and let Lil Miss Supa Dupa Fly just watch and learn as kind of an OJT.

#23 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-10-04 07:37 PM | Reply

" Lil Miss Supa Dupa Fly "

who?

#24 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2022-10-04 07:53 PM | Reply

That little Kaniqua girl they just hired ... . This is one of her first cases

#25 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-10-04 07:58 PM | Reply

...let Lil Miss Supa Dupa Fly just watch and learn as kind of an OJT.

Posted by racist Mao_Content

That's "Ms. Katanji Brown Jackson - magna cum laude graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law, U.S. District Court and United States Court of Appeals, and current Supreme Court Justice" to you, racist.

#26 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2022-10-04 08:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

That doesn't quite roll off the tongue like "obligatory affirmative action hire" tho ... .

Hopefully she's better at interpreting legislative intent than she is in defining what a "woman" is.

She's not a biologist, you know?

#27 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-10-04 08:44 PM | Reply

"Is an ephemeral stream or bar ditch 10 miles from the nearest navigable waterway really a JWOUS as the bureaucrats wish it to be?"

What do you think motivates the authorities, in this instance?

Does having Wetlands the equivalent of being Black in the eyes of The Man? Bullying people just because they can?

As a practical matter, why doesn't the government just condemn the land? They'll do that to build a new library.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-10-04 09:28 PM | Reply

What do you think motivates the authorities, in this instance?

Power.

If you decree by, bureaucratic Fiat, that every ephemeral or intermittent watercourse from its mouth or confluence to the very top of the watershed falls under federal jurisdiction, you've magically created a "federal nexus" that automatically triggers a NEPA review and can severely limit any activity or improvements to private property.

As a practical matter, why doesn't the government just condemn the land? They'll do that to build a new library.

You have to have a valid legal mechanism to do so.

That's what they're attempting to create here.

#29 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-10-04 09:47 PM | Reply

Power, but to what end.

Give me the mission statement. Are they working directly for Soros, or what?

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-10-04 09:53 PM | Reply

Power, but to what end.

Andele...so like, all philosophical and ---....

Well, Snoofy, that's a complicated question. Guys like you and I are smart. We shop at Trader Joe's and we know things. We know that gun owners are, statistically more likely to die from gunshot than non-gun-owners. We know eating beef is environmentally unsustainable and not aligned with our carbon output goals. We know systemic racism is the reason for the inequities of outcome we witness amongst certain demographics. We just know a lot of things that the average cretin doesn't.

The problem is that we live in a country whose legal system is predicated by archaic documents created by slave-owning white males. Those documents are entirely and explicitly dedicated to outlining what our government cannot do to us.

Obviously, that kind of intellectual baseline is incongruent to building the type of world that you and I know is possible. We have so many smart people in medicine, ecology, transportation, etc. All of then know things that could make our lives so much better, if not perfect, if the rabble would just shut the --- up and do what they're told. But we can't do that just yet.

So you do what you can---with what you have. That's why federal agencies and their rulemaking power are so awesome. The cretins don't get to vote on it.

In this case, the management of property is too important to be left to the greedy kulaks who own it. That management needs to be delegated to experts who can ensure the best outcome for the maximum amount of people.

Like the Ukraine in the 1930s.

#31 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-10-04 10:35 PM | Reply

"Like the Ukraine in the 1930s."

Like slaughtering the Bufflao to starve out the Indian, then.

That's not too complicated.

But.. Who's the Indian here?

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-10-04 10:52 PM | Reply

Like slaughtering the Bufflao to starve out the Indian, then

Exactly.

But.. Who's the Indian here?

The European and Mexican ones with college educations, disposable incomes, lawyers, legal property, water rights, and closets full of 30-round magazines.

Now you know something else.

Let's see what the Court does.

I'm looking forward to it. It'll be interesting.

#33 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-10-04 11:07 PM | Reply

I'm looking forward to it. It'll be interesting.

#33 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

Yeah because their last major ruling was so awesome. So well handled!

Yes it will be "interesting" to see what ideological shenanigans they pull this time.

How far back in time will they reach for their justification this time?Medieval Scandinavian law from the age of the Vikings?

Clarence can't possibly say anything more ignorant or be more corrupt than last time. Right?

#34 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-10-04 11:37 PM | Reply

I dunno.

It's hard to get "ideological" about --- like ephemeral watercourses and ditches.

I'm sure some dumbass at "Vox" will instruct you how to think about it when it's done.

It "guts" the Clean Water Act LOL

#35 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-10-04 11:49 PM | Reply

"The European and Mexican ones with college..."

So if they're the Indians, how does protecting wetlands starve them out?

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-10-05 12:00 AM | Reply

So if they're the Indians, how does protecting wetlands starve them out?

Lay off the White Claws.

They impact your coherence.

They're not "protecting" anything.

They're re-defining things they believe the have the authority to "protect".

#37 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-10-05 12:09 AM | Reply

This case falls into my wheelhouse of expertise

10 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

That's awesome, D*ucheSqu*rts!

Enlighten us!

#38 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-10-05 12:29 AM | Reply

How do you know Moankey_Pox is having a flare up?

He writes pages of nonsense to justify not giving a shht about clean water.

Just cut the sores off and bleed out already.

The world will be better off without hateful morons like you.

#39 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-10-05 04:05 AM | Reply

the GOP (including the clearly partisan GOP members on the
Supreme JOKE, err Court) are blatantly in the Hip Pocket
of the Oil Industry. It's sad, that campaign contribution
kickbacks matter more to the GOP than the environment and
nature.

#40 | Posted by earthmuse at 2022-10-05 06:31 AM | Reply

They're re-defining things they believe the have the authority to "protect".
#37 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

The question still stands.

How does that result in genocide of the subhuman European-Mexicans?

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-10-05 07:28 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort