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

To: WilliamIII

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.


2 posted on 01/09/2012 10:30:55 AM PST by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: freeangel
It would be nice to see SCOTUS take the case ...

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' ...

18 posted on 01/09/2012 10:55:24 AM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: freeangel

If I’m not mistaken the EPA sued the couple for $40 million dollars!!! Incredible. I salute that couple for not backing down and yes, whoever is responsible should go down!


21 posted on 01/09/2012 11:00:30 AM PST by Bitsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | 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: 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: freeangel
It would be nice to see SCOTUS take the case,

They did take the case. It was argued today. But, as I explained above, the issue before the Court isn't whether the property is a wetland or not; the issue is whether they can sue the EPA to get an answer to that question before they build on the property.

66 posted on 01/09/2012 5:40:37 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: freeangel

I wonder which neighbor is cozy with the EPA...


79 posted on 01/10/2012 11:08:24 AM PST by Stayfree (Find out the truth at Lawyers-Lawsuits.com!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

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