Posted on 06/28/2011 2:29:10 PM PDT by WilliamIII
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider a determination by the federal Environmental Protection Agency that it controls what happens on a privately owned parcel of residential land in Idaho and the landowners must do its bidding.
The EPA had warned the owners, Mike and Chantell Sackett, they could be fined millions of dollars if they disobeyed the federal officials' instructions to undo the preliminary construction work they had begun on what was supposed to be their dream house. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled they would have to go through a $200,000 government application process even to get a judicial review of the decision.
But that changed when the high court notified the Pacific Legal Foundation, an organization working on behalf of the Sackett family, that it had accepted the dispute for review.
Read more: Owners of land taken over by feds getting day in court http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=316361#ixzz1QbjaIa6g
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Thanks WilliamIII.
“Apparently the good folks in idaho didn’t get the word and hired a lawyer that took their money and didnot explain the precedents.”
Apparently you don’t know very much about the Pacific Legal Foundation’s work, do you?
JC
And missed this:
“The issue arose over the EPA’s announcement that the Sacketts’ residential parcel in a subdivision, which had no standing or running water, was a “wetlands.” “
Read more: Owners of land taken over by feds getting day in court http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=316361#ixzz1QcE9jJ9u
OK, corner an angry dog...
This government is putting itself in a dangerous corner. This bodes ill and the arrogance is staggering.
A lot of tyranny comes of unintended consequences and short memories. Mine's a bit foggy, but I seem to remember George Herbert Walker Bush saying he wanted to be known as "the Environmental President." At the time, I thought it a combination of rhetoric and appeal to the nascent green voting group. That may in fact be what he intended. But, he planted a bad seed.
Yes, really. That’s what I hope. You won’t find me defending what progressive Republicans do. So what is your point?
I don’t doubt it. The EPA is a good place to start cutting government, right along with Homeland Security.
Under Carter, the EPA started replacing engineers with lawyers. More emphasis on litigation and edict and less on solutions. The civil service bureaucracy sustained this changed attitude and incrementally increased it one step at a time.
IMHO, the EPA was a very positive step originally and fostered essential improvements in largely practical ways. No longer do I believe this though and haven't for quite a time.
Don’t mess with the Sacketts. William Tell is a handful.
What's wrong with the EPA started under FDR, with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn.
A truly sicking situation that DEMANDS the absolute ABOLITION of the EPA!
and I used to laugh at folks who say ‘elections do not matter’, it’s the bureaucrats that run the place’.
Can you say ‘Permanent Government’? I thought you could.
It’s politicians that create and self-empower bureaucrats.
It is also politicians as a group that refuses to abolish theses usurpation. Perhaps because they no longer can cause the modester their predecessors have created has too much power and influence over most elections and thus most of them.
Maybe cause they don’t want to, and they are simply lying to us. In either case We have lost control of the Government, and now the Government seeks to control us with or without our consent to be governed.
I thought the Supreme Court already ruled that the government can sieze a private citizen’s land and give it to a private developer to turn into a strip shopping center?
Abolish the EPA!
Nixon might have signed it, but Congress was overwhelmingly controlled by the democrats.
That is one of the most ridiculous statements I've read on FR in a long time.
You don't seriously think the EPA was a bunch of knights on white horses until Dubya's term in office, do you?
Does the name William Ruckelshaus ring a bell?
Look it up if it doesn't.
On April 17, 2008, Ruckelshaus made news again when he announced his endorsement of Democrat Barack Obama for President of the United States.
The 5th Amendment?
What’s that?
Well, I think your 5th Amendment is obviously racist and therefore will not be considered.
Now pay your taxes, we need raises. :)
/sarc(?)
Not after the Army Corps of Engineers lost both Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers, and a RAPANOS et ux., et al. v. UNITED STATES in the U.S. Supreme Court.
This idea of a designation that is not judicially reviewable is the EPA latest "work around" for those two decisions. Plaintiffs are likely to prevail in this case.
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.