Clean Water Act reach limited (per SCOTUS)

SCOTUSblog ^ | June 19, 2006 | Lyle Denniston

[sdillard]

Huzzah! This will drive the enviroweenies nuts.

[2banana]

Ditches. That what this was about. Can the feds control how you did ditches...

[Constitution Day]

BUMP

[Redbob]

"Can the feds control how you did ditches..."

No.
Nor even how you dig them.

[jveritas]

That is one very important aspect of President Bush legacy: “A Conservative Supreme Court”. Thank you Mr. President.

[kitchen]

One small step in the path back to freedom.

[nuclady]

I can't tell you the hours and hours I spent arguing with the state conservation dept. in my state on the defition of "navigable waters." The Clean Water Act is a nightmare!!!

[OldFriend]

In NJ the powers that be can decide you can't fill a pothole in your own driveway if it gets puddles of water that geese visit on occasion.

Given the state is overrun with geese the ruling here is asinine in the extreme.

[Carry_Okie]

This has already been adjudicated. A navigable waterway is one that can support a load of 12DWT or more. I don't have the citation but I know who does.

Marsh2, do you have a citation to the case Angus MacIntosh was talking about?

[Knitting A Conundrum]

They deserve it.

[nuclady]

PIMF: definition

[SmithL]

The enviroweenies are up the creek without a paddle.

[Carry_Okie]

Thx.

[shield]

Sanity in the courts again.

[oxcart]

Ya, tell me about how good the government does ditches, Houston is flooded again today. Looks like a mini Katrina hit.

[Alas Babylon!]

How does a 5-4 decision count only as a plurality? Shouldn't that be a majority? Or does Kennedy's separate concurence count as another, third vote? But the 5 (counting Kennedy) is still a majority (5 of 9 = majority of 9). Sounds like the reporter is splitting hairs in order to give the Left some comfort.

[xzins]

That's what I thought it was talking about, but I couldn't imagine anyone that worked up to sue over ditches.

[blitzgig]

It's a bigger win than the reporter lets on. A clear 5-vote majority agreed that the government overstepped its bounds in trying to regulate a so-called "wetland" in this case. However, the justices could not agree on the larger issue of what exactly are the constitutional boundaries dictating the government's power to regulate wetlands. On that point, Kennedy would not vote with either the conservative bloc or the liberal bloc.

Not perfect, but I'm happy that it's in the right direction.

[notigar]

where did you read or hear about that at?