Posted on 03/21/2012 8:16:17 AM PDT by pabianice
Now on Fox. SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the couple that bought a house lot and was then fined $ 175,000/day by the loathsome EPA for "disturbing a wetland" that does not exist. Will be fascinating to see if any of the Rancid Media even report this.
Unanimously usually means 9-0
The $30,000 number is not a threshhold in the decision, its just the news story. As far as I can tell there is no threshold number.
An earlier post in this thread stated they are nearly bankrupt. If so they will need someone to step in an do it Pro Bono.
ping!
Amazing, huh? Love it!
>> “Looks like all they won was the right to sue, not an actual case on the substance yet.” <<
.
That is all that the SCOTUS could rule on. The substance of the case cannot be argued before the SCOTUS until it is ruled upon in another court. Do you understand what “appelate” means?
This is the same as “Natural Born” citizenship. It has never been put before the court, so it cannot be ruled upon. Those that say the 14th amendment’s class of citizenship has been held to be ‘natural born’ by the court are idiots, since it has never been appealed to the court.
They will win in court, and the EPA has been cut down severely.
And I find it a little disturbing that a fine of just under $30,000 A DAY is acceptable to anyone.
This in no way is a phyrric victory, this is a real win.
This means that the EPA must defend and justify it’s actions in a court of law. It cannot just use a club to intimidate and selectively enforce it’s pet projects.
Every American should be screaming mad that it takes intervention from the SCOTUS to allow private citizens to defend themselves against unelected rogue officials from the EPA.
This disgusting pile of crap needs to be done away with.
The EPA will still run these poor people through the wringer for years. They will probably spend most of all they have and they will still not be building the home of their dreams. I would not be surprised to learn that they have had to file for bankruptcy and give up this fight a few years from now.
The worst part of this is that this should not be a fight. This is another example of good intentions gone bad. Nixon tried to pacify the ecology movement by creating the EPA and it has been taken over by radicals with no concern for the constitution. The EPA has become a terrorist organization and no one in government is defending us against them.
In order to enlighten what Thomas Jefferson called "the American mind" of today to the Founding generation's wisdom and reasoning on their strong Constitutional limits protecting "the People's" rights to property, a reading of the following words of John Adams might be in order. They can be found and downloaded from here.
"Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free." (Underlining added for emphasis)
After reading Adams' words, and seeing what has happened today,can we doubt the wisdom of his words?
Thank goodness. The elitists will ignore this decision, but it’s better for the Republic they have the decision.
WHY did the administrations’s EPA fight this? Are they INSANE???
Their report actually implies a split decision because they mention a separate ruling from Justice Ginsberg.
For political reasons, the MSM cannot portray this court as anything other than 5-4 partisan.
I kind of want to celebrate but, it's frightening to theink that government bureaucrats would have proceded with this isn the first place.......Call them what they are----> DC Fascists.
“...the EPA cannot threaten fines of more than $30,000 a day without giving property owners the ability to challenge its actions.”
The EPA will just change to meet that guide from SCOTUS. $29,999.00 per day is still enough to break anyone.
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?????
The decision did not say that they couldn’t fine you more than $30,000 a day, therefore anything under that limit is fine.
The decision said that they cannot issue edicts, for example a $30,000 a day fine, and not provide legal recourse for those who which to challenge their administrative decisions.
People are getting so caught up in the semantics of a news story that they refuse to actually read the decision.
And we consider ourselves informed citizens on this site?
Good news. Thanks for the ping.
The court still “wussed out” trying to let the undefined* term term “the waters of the United States,” §1362 which is general override “navigable waters,”§1344. which is specific. its sad that such great minds happily dismiss basic principles.
*But Congress did not define what it meant by “the waters of the United States”; the phrase was not a term of art with a known meaning; and the words themselves are hopelessly indeterminate ALITO, J., concurring
Who was the law firm representing the couple. Was it the Pacific Legal Foundation?
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.