Skip to comments.
Supreme Court deal unanimous welcome blow to administrative (trunc)
National Review ^
| 12/2/18
| George Will
Posted on 12/02/2018 8:47:10 AM PST by BigEdLB
Uncertain of rules on NR, but had to post this
TOPICS: Government; US: Louisiana; US: Mississippi
KEYWORDS: b; duskygopherfrog; frog; scotus
John Roberts talking about, brick conking a gopher? LOL
1
posted on
12/02/2018 8:47:10 AM PST
by
BigEdLB
To: BigEdLB
George Will...?
I will pass..
2
posted on
12/02/2018 8:51:22 AM PST
by
Popman
("GOD´S NOT LOOKING FOR PARTNERSHIP WITH US, BUT OWNERSHIP OF US")
To: BigEdLB
"This idea is the crux of progressivisms case for allowing the administrative state to boss us around without judicial review of its bossiness: This states agencies say that they possess detailed expertise beyond Congresss ken, and courts should bow before the agencies disinterested wisdom when construing Congresss legislative instructions, however much the instructions ambiguities leave the agencies with vast discretion. Roberts reminded the dusky gopher frogs friends that courts are commanded by law to set aside any agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.'"
Maybe Roberts is not yet all on the Dark Side.
Good post.
3
posted on
12/02/2018 8:55:13 AM PST
by
Paladin2
To: Popman
No, it’s actually not a bad article.
4
posted on
12/02/2018 8:56:05 AM PST
by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
To: Popman
Some one must have put some speed in George’s morning pudding. He became suddenly sentient here.
5
posted on
12/02/2018 8:58:17 AM PST
by
Paladin2
To: Popman
Basically, the lower court said that even though the 1500 acres in Louisiana is not at all a habitat that the gopher frog likes, and no gopher frogs have been there in 50 years, it can still be protected.
The Supreme Court said "wrong!". And Chief Justice Roberts said that contrary to lower court ruling, a critical habitat must be habitable.
To: BigEdLB
7
posted on
12/02/2018 9:07:39 AM PST
by
Hebrews 11:6
(Do you REALLY believe that (1) God IS, and (2) God IS GOOD?)
To: Hebrews 11:6
"The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. "
Thanks for the link to the "opinion"/ruling. Original sources are what made the 'net great.
8
posted on
12/02/2018 9:22:22 AM PST
by
Paladin2
To: BigEdLB
Atheist and Trump hater George Will pens a worthwhile column. I’m shocked.
To: BigEdLB
And a “wetland” must be accessible and navigational by a Coast Guard vessel.
10
posted on
12/02/2018 9:41:21 AM PST
by
spokeshave2
(The Paradigm has shifted...the New World Order is Trumpian.)
To: spokeshave2
You must be thinking “navigable waters” not wetlands?
11
posted on
12/02/2018 10:05:50 AM PST
by
Manly Warrior
(US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War")
Yes, a good read.
I typically despise the man but he did well with this one. I guess John Robert’s sarcasm in the opinion fit the writer?
12
posted on
12/02/2018 10:46:29 AM PST
by
Sa-teef
To: BigEdLB
Essentially, the Fish and Wildlife Service tried to reach out and seize 1,500 acres of private land on a thoroughly specious pretext. FWS got slapped down, and properly so. But my question is, what is the underlying story? Why did FWS want this land, or at least effective control over this land, to begin with? I wonder if there's a hidden agenda, or if there's a local activist group with a burr under its saddle.
If this 1,500 acres is so all-fired important -- which, per the story, seems clearly not to be the case -- the straightforward course of action would be for FWS to attempt to buy it, or do a land swap. Perhaps FWS was just being lazy and didn't want to go to Congress for the money. But this action is so arbitrary -- reach out and grab 1,500 acres on which the frog hasn't lived in 50 years -- that I wonder if something else underlies the action.
13
posted on
12/02/2018 12:14:10 PM PST
by
sphinx
To: sphinx
Superbly reasoned and stated. Surely there is a backstory. I’m sure Weyerhaeuser knows.
14
posted on
12/02/2018 1:05:16 PM PST
by
Hebrews 11:6
(Do you REALLY believe that (1) God IS, and (2) God IS GOOD?)
To: SoFloFreeper
15
posted on
12/02/2018 3:00:25 PM PST
by
BigEdLB
(BigEdLB, Russian BOT, At your service)
To: Manly Warrior
"You must be thinking navigable waters not wetlands?" Correct.
In fact, in some jurisdictions, "wetlands" need not necessarily contain water. The mere presence of various species of "wetlands vegetation" suffices to classify land as a "wetland"...
TXnMA
16
posted on
12/02/2018 5:27:10 PM PST
by
TXnMA
("Allah": Satan's current Alias | "Barack": Satan's minion | "Muslims": Satan's useful idiots...)
To: spokeshave2
"You must be thinking navigable waters not wetlands?" Correct.
In fact, in some jurisdictions, "wetlands" need not necessarily contain water. The mere presence of various species of "wetlands vegetation" suffices to classify land as a "wetland"...
TXnMA
17
posted on
12/02/2018 5:28:40 PM PST
by
TXnMA
("Allah": Satan's current Alias | "Barack": Satan's minion | "Muslims": Satan's useful idiots...)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson