Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justices criticize EPA’s dealings with Idaho homeowners
Spokane Spokesman Review/AP ^ | Jan 9 2012 | AP

Posted on 01/09/2012 10:26:29 AM PST by WilliamIII

WASHINGTON — Several Supreme Court justices are criticizing the Environmental Protection Agency for heavy-handed enforcement of rules affecting homeowners.

The justices were considering whether to let a North Idaho couple challenge an EPA order identifying their land as “protected wetlands.” Mike and Chantell Sackett of Priest Lake wanted to build their house on the land. But the EPA says the Sacketts can’t challenge the order to restore the land to wetlands or face thousands of dollars in fines.

Justice Samuel Alito called EPA’s actions “outrageous.” Justice Antonin Scalia noted the “high-handedness of the agency” in dealing with private property. Chief Justice John Roberts said that the EPA’s contention that the Sacketts’ land is wetlands, something the couple disagrees with, would never be put to a test under current procedure.

The Sacketts were filling in a lot near Priest Lake in 2007 to construct a house when EPA officials shut down the project, saying the couple had filled in wetlands without getting a permit.

(Excerpt) Read more at spokesman.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Front Page News; Government; US: Idaho
KEYWORDS: alito; crushepa; envirofascism; epa; epacorruption; epafascism; epajackboots; govtabuse; idaho; idahohomeowners; justicealito; liberalfascism; propertyrights; sackett; scotus; tyranny; wetlands
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last
To: zeugma
I should have just looked before posting. The oral arguments is here : Supreme Court Oral Arguments. Right now it's just a PDF. If, after reading through it, I think an HTML copy of this would be useful for folks, I'll mark one up. Might take a day or two for me. Someone else will likely beat me to it though.

For those who might read this who don't typically read SC oral arguments, you might want to keep in mind that you really can't tell how a given justice will vote based on the questions asked.

41 posted on 01/09/2012 12:29:36 PM PST by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: freeangel; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; Nepeta; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
42 posted on 01/09/2012 12:40:52 PM PST by LucyT ( NB. ~ Pakistan was NOT on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981. ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mack the knife
The EPA people did it because the homeowners refused to roll over.

Oh, I certainly get that aspect -- I'm just trying to figure what made these yahoos even become aware that this half acre in north Idaho even existed. This falls well below the normal resolution of their radar.

43 posted on 01/09/2012 1:02:44 PM PST by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

Sotomayor and Kagan are left wing activists who were lucky enough to get put on the Supreme Court where they can work their mischief for the next 30 years. There is no case so egregious she won’t vote for it. The Constitution is a living document that needs tweaking from time to time as far as they are concerned. I just pray to God that Ginsberg lives at least 1 hour past Newt’s inaugeration so he can put another Thomas or Scalia on the bench.


44 posted on 01/09/2012 1:11:13 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mack the knife
This is the same mentality exhibited by the ATF when the gentleman at Ruby Ridge refused to go spy for them, and so they entrapped him into sawing off the barrel of a shotgun, then threatened him with a felony conviction.

Then sent him the wrong court date so they could convict him in absentia, then sent a US Marshal's SWAT team in to provoke a gunfight so they could send in the FBI Hostage Rescue Team to kill the gentleman and his family.

45 posted on 01/09/2012 1:11:51 PM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Government should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyP

Nolan lit a shuck out of New Mexico again. and is on his way.


46 posted on 01/09/2012 1:35:52 PM PST by Rannug ("God has given it to me, let him who touches it beware.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: HereInTheHeartland

Exactly. Our ancestors would have put these jackasses in chains, as would the founding fathers.


47 posted on 01/09/2012 1:41:42 PM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: fire and forget

I completely agree with you, fire and forget.

In a nation with more guns than people, a population FED UP with abuses of the Constitution (many of them veterans sworn to “support and defend” it), and a clearly ineligible usurper in the White House ... I could easily go on ... it is indeed shocking that nobody has gone postal yet.

All it would take is a couple of guys meeting for a beer after a day at the target range, attract a few like-minded friends as word spreads, and we could easily have a genuine rebellion on our hands.

But I just as equally agree that Obummer DREAMS about us “bitter clingers” starting an armed insurrection. Then he could declare a national emergency, suspend both the election and the Constitution, lock up lots of people without trial, shut down the Internet (and the phones too, why not?) and we would quickly see our first American Emperor.

Infuriating is too mild a word ... and the pressure builds.


48 posted on 01/09/2012 1:52:29 PM PST by DNME (A monarch's neck should always have a noose around it. It keeps him upright. - Robert Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross
I think this is an extraordinary notice by the Justices to the EPA that they better revise their actions immediately since SCOTUS is very clear with this, that if the case comes to the Court later the EPA won't like the outcome. 'With prejudice' ...

Yes, because this is their third Strike. First there was SWANCC v. Army Corp of Engineers where the EPA's migratory waterfowl definition was upended.

Second there was Rapanos v. Army Corp where they were slapped by Scalia about the "waters of the United States"

Now in this case, they attempt an end around the federal courts with their rule making. It is not wise to argue that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction, or the defendants in a federal action do not have standing .

Three strikes and you're out.

49 posted on 01/09/2012 2:16:02 PM PST by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: alancarp
Yes, for Americans it is hard to believe.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, which also filed briefs in the case, has called it a corporate-backed effort to weaken regulations of the Clean Water Act.

I pulled the quote as a reminder, to myself, that if allowed to implement their Utopia, many Leftists would happily march every Freeper off to labor camps.

50 posted on 01/09/2012 2:16:32 PM PST by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey
While we slept these past 70 years, Congress assigned its lawmaking responsibility to unelected agencies. No Congressman, not even the worst rats would legislate such fines. For unelected agencies to write their rules, establish enforcement and punishment for violations is the definition of tyranny. We let this happen. It must stop. Lean hard on your Congress-critters.

So yes, some government thug will end up wishing he hadn't eaten the radical environmental fruit and the blame will be placed on the poor schlub exercising his property rights.

51 posted on 01/09/2012 2:26:29 PM PST by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: WSGilcrest
Don’t mess with the Sacketts. Just ask the Higgins!

I too have always found the names of the homeowners in this case very ironic. Imagine some bureaucrat telling Kin, Tell, Lando or Barnabas that they can't live on land they've worked to improve.
52 posted on 01/09/2012 2:50:28 PM PST by LostInBayport (When there are more people riding in the cart than there are pulling it, the cart stops moving...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LostInBayport

At least the US Constitution explicitly protects property rights, so it’s much harder for the Supreme Court to completely ignore the issue. The Canadian Constitution has no property protection so it’s open season on property rights. Our governments can expropriate and impose land use restrictions with impunity.


53 posted on 01/09/2012 3:01:44 PM PST by littleharbour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Flint

The same Newt who sits on the global warming couch with Pelosi? Yeah, I’ll bet he comes down real hard on the EPA if he gets into office. /s


54 posted on 01/09/2012 3:03:10 PM PST by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: littleharbour
At least the US Constitution explicitly protects property rights, so it’s much harder for the Supreme Court to completely ignore the issue.

That's true, but that doesn't stop them getting it wrong, like in the disastrous Kelo decision. Anthony Kennedy swung that one for the dark side.
55 posted on 01/09/2012 3:10:43 PM PST by LostInBayport (When there are more people riding in the cart than there are pulling it, the cart stops moving...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free

I’ve thought of that. Like all liberals they say they are doing it for the planet, earth, environment, etc. However, in reality that are doing it for their nice government salary.

I say tell them if you truly believe that what you are doing is a worth wile cause, they you will have no problem making sacrifices and doing whatever it is you do for $1/year.


56 posted on 01/09/2012 3:42:37 PM PST by matt04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker

I believe this was her quote: ¿Qué es la propiedad privada?


57 posted on 01/09/2012 4:03:15 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freeangel

“It would be nice to see SCOTUS take the case, rule against the EPA and hold the person who chose to make the decision personally responsible for any expenses this couple became saddled with in order to protect their property.”

I doubt very seriously if anyone will be held personally
accountable. The question is whether the EPA will abide
to the SCOTUS ruling. With the in session recess appointments
going on, I wouldn’t put it past the regime to tell the
SCOTUS to go spoon a goose.


58 posted on 01/09/2012 4:04:03 PM PST by Slambat (The right to keep and bear arms. Anything one man can carry, drive or pull.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

One more Thomas if you please. Old Anthony cannot always be counted on to produce more liberty.


59 posted on 01/09/2012 4:14:21 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

“Rats will gnaw their leg off to escape a trap; wounded deer will attack you; what makes anyone think that the animal in all of us will react any differently?”

“When People Lose Everything, They Have Nothing Left To Lose, And They Lose It”.. Gerald Celente

Something tells me that that is what this regime wants. A
good excuse to suspend the constitution and elections and
bring in full marshal law. Remember, all laws are ultimatly
enforced with the point of a gun. You will comply or die.


60 posted on 01/09/2012 4:21:00 PM PST by Slambat (The right to keep and bear arms. Anything one man can carry, drive or pull.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson