Posted on 03/21/2012 10:38:33 AM PDT by Mikey_1962
The Supreme Court has sided with an Idaho couple in a property rights case, ruling they can go to court to challenge an Environmental Protection Agency order that blocked construction of their new home and threatened fines of more than $30,000 a day.
Wednesday's 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 could not disturbed without a permit.
In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court rejected EPA's argument that allowing property owners quick access to courts to contest orders like the one issued to the Sacketts would compromise the agency's ability to deal with water pollution.
"Compliance orders will remain an effective means of securing prompt voluntary compliance in those many cases where there is no substantial basis to question their validity," Scalia said.
In this case, the couple objected to the determination that their small lot contained wetlands that are regulated by the Clean Water Act, and they complained there was no reasonable way to challenge the order without risking fines that can mount quickly.
The EPA issues nearly 3,000 administrative compliance orders a year that call on alleged violators of environmental laws to stop what they're doing and repair the harm they've caused. Major business groups, homebuilders, road builders and agricultural interests all have joined the Sacketts in urging the court to make it easier to contest EPA compliance orders issued under several environmental laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
The better news would be if the EPA had to pay their legal bills.
I think Stossel did a report on this. This just ruined those poor people.
Chalk up one for the little guy.
“...for the people, by the people...”
this is good news
The communists empire in America is so huge that we may never reverse and become a free people again. Wake up America and take this empire down .
There may be something in the code that says they have to but that doesn't mean much when dealing with the government.
My father has a settlement with the IRS that follows exactly the law they are supposed to follow in regards to their errors causing damage and the same settlement has been agreed to three times and they admitted wrongdoing three times -- until they just said We don't have to pay you because we are the IRS.
It is good news and reinforces the 5th Amendment to the Constitution:
“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
You can bet during discovery there will be neighbor with an “in” at the EPA. The property was surrounded by devolped homes on all sides. Kinda like someone’s private little park.
By the way, I saw how Ginsburg distanced herself from the decision, although she went along with it. She said she agreed to the idea of us poor sheeple being able to challenge the gub'mint (nice of her), but she strongly implied that she was on the side of the EPA and probably hopes the couple will lose to the EPA in court (musn't challenge our god-like overlords!!).
Especially if construction would block a view. I have neighbors that have pulled that, one an old liberal that has lived in the neighborhood 40 years and can’t stand any new neighbors and a gay couple that live next to the old liberal and have friendly little chats with him over the fence post from time to time.
I remained quiet in the conflict while supporting the new construction with the Building Department, where I suggested a designated irregular shaped wetland area that was the size of about a parking stall and the new home was constructed on a 10 foot buffer back from the wet area. The wet area was planted with wet land plants and looked quite nice. This was far better than condemning their whole property plus a portion of mine which is what the old liberal and his gay neighbor friends were aiming to do.
I mention the gay neighbors as ‘gay’ because they were typical urban liberals that ‘hate’ straight people or anyone that did not adhere to their view of the world; and when I use the word ‘hate’ I mean these people were vicious in their attitudes towards other neighbors that did not conform with their code of behavior and thinking. I think Freepers know the type.
Local environut tried to pull something similar when a bridge was being replaced in Johnson NY.
The bridge was almost completely down and this nut shows up to complain about how the noise was hurting the fishies and the froggies.
So he then gets the demolition shut down for a month while his buddies dork around trying to look important.
Once they got a gander at the bridge supports, removal and replacement of the bridge proceeded apace.
[You could kick the concrete and cause an avalanche of concrete kibble.]
It was a 9-0 decision, but it isn’t the best news. Our Constitution is still being shredded. Take a look at Ginsburg’s commentary and that’s why the libs went along with it. They’ve not suddenly discovered liberty and the virtues of government restraint.
We need to win the Presidency and Congress this time around. We could use two more Thomases on the Court.
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.