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 cant challenge the order to restore the land to wetlands or face thousands of dollars in fines.
Justice Samuel Alito called EPAs actions outrageous. Justice Antonin Scalia noted the high-handedness of the agency in dealing with private property. Chief Justice John Roberts said that the EPAs 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 ...
where’s the LIKE button??!!
What also bothers me is that the autofellating crew at NPR (who normally foam at the mouth at that kind of thing) never seemed to cover, let alone emphasize, it.
NO Cheers, unfortunately.
You might enjoy this:
A Republic, If You Can Keep It, or, Go Fly A Kite
and this:
A Republic If You Can Keep It Part II: The New Feudalism Tweedledum and Tweedledee go to Washington
Cheers!
Then they shot his dog, his son and his wife before it was all over.
I especially appreciated the words of Locke who said legislatures could not assign their legislative duties.
Well, a few weeks ago I listened to Justices Breyer and Scalia, in a jovial and friendly Senate hearing, say in so many words that lawmaking by agencies was almost always just peachy and Constitutional.
We are no longer governed. We are ruled. The problem with the EPA is not that it writes outrageous rules, but rather that it is allowed to write any rules at all.
Hire temps, in batches, on short term contracts. If someone isn’t working out, simply decline to renew the entire group. Sucks to be them, but once the word gets out maybe ‘peer pressure’ can keep troublemakers in line.
>The couple then sued the EPA so it could get a court decision on whether it’s a wetland or not before they build; the theory of their lawsuit is that if the EPA is right and they are wrong, they want to know it before they incur ruinous fines.
They should have incurred the ruinous fines and then added to their challenge of it the 8th amendment.
Maybe somebody should whisper to the EPA that Co-op City sits on a former wetland! Shouldn’t the environuts demand it be torn down and the land restored to its original, pristine, swampiness? And maybe the land-raping co-op owners should be forced to pay for it!
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.