To: Dr. Sivana; StarFan; Dutchy; alisasny; BobFromNJ; BUNNY2003; Cacique; Clemenza; Coleus; cyborg; ...
From Fox News website:
ON The Supreme Court has unanimously sided with Idaho property owners whose plans to build a home were blocked by an Environmental Protection Agency order declaring the property contained wetlands.
In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court says Wednesday that the EPA cannot threaten fines of more than $30,000 a day without giving property owners the ability to challenge its actions.
The decision is a victory for Mike and Chantell Sackett, whose property near a scenic lake has sat undisturbed since the EPA ordered a halt in work in 2007. The agency said part of the property was a wetlands that cannot be disturbed without a permit.
The couple complained there was no reasonable way to challenge the order.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/21/supreme-court-sides-with-idaho-property-owners-over-epa/#ixzz1plUWfCxh
Thank you for the above information, Dr. Sivana (post #7)
Here's the SCOTUS opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf
50 posted on
03/21/2012 8:50:08 AM PDT by
nutmeg
(Rest in Peace, and THANK YOU, Andrew Breitbart)
To: nutmeg
"The District Court dismissed the claims for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Clean Water Act precluded preenforcement judicial review of compliance orders and that such preclusion did not violate due process... SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court."Wow. A unanimous SCOTUS triple smackdown of the District Court, the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals (they should be used to this by now!) and the EPA (they deserve a lot more smackdowns).
To: nutmeg
UNANIMOUS.
Even the Marxists on the court flipped the EPA the bird.
THE EPA HAS NO REDEEMING FEATURES.
55 posted on
03/21/2012 8:57:36 AM PDT by
Lazamataz
(Shut up and drill.)
To: nutmeg
To: nutmeg
Yes, but as others pointed out, this merely allows them to fight the case in court, where it will end up with the Ninth Circus.
And I find it a little disturbing that a fine of just under $30,000 A DAY is acceptable to anyone.
67 posted on
03/21/2012 9:18:59 AM PDT by
LS
("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
To: nutmeg
"In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court says Wednesday that the EPA cannot threaten fines of more than $30,000 a day without giving property owners the ability to challenge its actions." So....the EPA can still issue an edict in regard to my property and fine me $29,000 a day over an issue for noncompliance, AND I HAVE NO RIGHT TO APPEAL???? My only options are Obey or go bankrupt fast????
What happened to our country?????
76 posted on
03/21/2012 9:39:43 AM PDT by
cookcounty
(Newt 2012: ---> Because he got it DONE.)
To: nutmeg
Good news. Thanks for the ping.
78 posted on
03/21/2012 10:04:59 AM PDT by
Bigg Red
(Pray for our republic.)
To: nutmeg
Good news, thanks for the heads up!
82 posted on
03/21/2012 10:16:10 AM PDT by
Syncro
(Sarah Palin, the unofficial Tea Party candidate for president--Virtual Jerusalem)
To: nutmeg
102 posted on
03/21/2012 5:26:59 PM PDT by
Coleus
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson