Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Couple Brutalized by Rogue EPA

Fox News Channel ^ | 3/21/12

[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.

[battousai]

You know what is really maddening, that even if this poor couple win their eventual case against the EPA, the American people still lose, cause the EPA is just burning your money (and this couples).

[Syncro]

Good news, thanks for the heads up!

[kempo]

Why have the Republicans in the House not pulled the EPA representatives involved in this case into a hearing over this matter?

[SierraWasp]

Hogwash! Who has the persistence and determination and especially the resources to first take EPA all the way to the Supremes only to win the right to take the EPA to court again while paying a still astronomical $30, 000/day fine?

Not even Donald Trump would have the guts to take on this unabated leviathon!!!

I am so disappointed in Scilia and the others for not standing this entire malignant agency, along with the Army Corps in their collective GovernMental/EnvironMental heads to stop the collective assault on individual property rights in America.

It's a sin they didn't do vastly more than they did!!!

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

The Sacketts sued because they were not allowed to challenge the administrative decision.

Let that sink in.

The EPA would not allow them to challenge, even in Court, their decision.

That was the entirety of this case.

That was it, nothing more.

Was there anything more to this case brought to the Supreme Court?

Nope.

And what did the Supreme Court do?

Unanimously they handed the EPA their collective heads on a platter and said “NO! You cannot make decisions and refuse to be challenged on them.”

That is the law of the land now, and issued with as thunderous of a voice as the Supreme Court could muster.

What you were wanting to happen was outside of the scope and scale of the decision before them.

They gutted the EPA today, there is no question about it. If the EPA has to defend all of their capricious decisions in a Court of Law, almost all of their power is gone.

[stephenjohnbanker]

$175,000 per day? Man that can really deplete your savings account real fast!

[SierraWasp]

Well, I'll grant you that what I wish for would require legislation and legislative oversight by courageous congressional representatives to turn back the aggressive onslaught that has emboldened the terrible GovernMental/EnvironMental tyrants with their unabashed assult on their "subjects" aka American Citizens/Private Property Owners.

Too many in America just willingly accept the creepy theory that "ownership" no longer is synonomous with "control!" I still say they are barely better off than they were before this seemingly momentus decision because the process has not been dismantled in the least. Legal is legal but is rarely ethical, right or just!!!

This subject upsets me so much I forget to run spell-check and tend to flare and release the cold rage in my gut and for that I apologize to you.

[Carry_Okie]

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.

How little you understand of this history. Nixon's environmental laws had nothing to do with good intentions and everything to do with the collapse of the Brettonwoods agreement. It was exactly the same mentality by which GHWB gave us the Agenda21. That family is up to their necks in Gobble Grub-a-mint.

[SierraWasp]

"This won’t prevent EPA over-reach, and it will still saddle people with legal costs in those cases, but there should be much less of this stuff."

I understand how you are trying to rationalize this, but it's a lot like saying that something great had happened if they actually reduce the price of gasoline to the level it was on Obamanogeration day. $1.398

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

The Sacketts sued because they were not allowed to challenge the administrative decision. Let that sink in. The EPA would not allow them to challenge, even in Court, their decision. That was the entirety of this case. That was it, nothing more. Was there anything more to this case brought to the Supreme Court? Nope. And what did the Supreme Court do? Unanimously they handed the EPA their collective heads on a platter and said “NO! You cannot make decisions and refuse to be challenged on them.” That is the law of the land now, and issued with as thunderous of a voice as the Supreme Court could muster.

5th and 14th amendments: Nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

CNN Link: "If you related the facts of this case -- as they come to us -- to an ordinary homeowner," Justice Samuel Alito asked the government's attorney, "don't you think most ordinary homeowners would say this kind of thing can't happen in the United States?"

[Baynative]

Thanks for the correction. Even at my age, there’s still plenty top learn.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

(Bug in FR "TO:" field. Had to post twice to get the users names to work in post. See post #90)

The Sacketts sued because they were not allowed to challenge the administrative decision. Let that sink in. The EPA would not allow them to challenge, even in Court, their decision. That was the entirety of this case. That was it, nothing more. Was there anything more to this case brought to the Supreme Court? Nope. And what did the Supreme Court do? Unanimously they handed the EPA their collective heads on a platter and said “NO! You cannot make decisions and refuse to be challenged on them.” That is the law of the land now, and issued with as thunderous of a voice as the Supreme Court could muster.

5th and 14th amendments: Nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

CNN Link: "If you related the facts of this case -- as they come to us -- to an ordinary homeowner," Justice Samuel Alito asked the government's attorney, "don't you think most ordinary homeowners would say this kind of thing can't happen in the United States?"

[stephenjohnbanker]

BUMP

[freeangel]

“Well, this is a smackdown to Obama isn’t it?”

Only if it “debankrupts” this couple. Other than that, it was a win for the king and his thugs.

[Carry_Okie]

From the press release:

“Rest assured, while today’s ruling strengthens everyone’s individual rights and property rights, and everyone’s access to justice, it does not weaken legitimate environmental protection one iota,” Schiff continued.

Gosh, I’m just so relieved to have EPA and the courts still in the business of determining what constitutes “legitimate environmental protection,” a determination in which private landowners have no standing.

That's why I obtained my patent on a free market environmental management business method. It created a way for the landowner to gain standing in such cases, IMO legally in front of the EPA.

[Darren McCarty]

Procedural victory allowing for judicial review when a hearing in rejected in certain cases.

What's next will likely be a hearing. It sounds like the terms of the compliance order or if jurisdiction applies wasn't raised from this case or argued.

[mo]

IMHO...sounds like the lawyers won on this one!!

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Nixon's environmental laws had nothing to do with good intentions and everything to do with the collapse of the Brettonwoods agreement. It was exactly the same mentality by which GHWB gave us the Agenda21. That family is up to their necks in Gobble Grub-a-mint.

As I understand it, Nixon "gave" us the EPA at the same time certain other governments were worried about the value of the dollar, and these governments would feel better if the US government owned more land containing strategic resources (so that private citizens would not be able to deplete the resources). I agree the EPA is out of control and in the hands of leftists now. Was that Nixon's motive?

At the same time, there were real problems in the Cuyahoga River and the Great Lakes. Are there some Nixon memoirs that reveal that he wanted the EPA to confiscate private land from US citizens, and to keep private industry from using resources? I am reluctant to try to read minds.

Do you have a link that would help to clear this up?

[jwalsh07]

I’d recommend everybody read Justice Alito’s concurrence. He pokes a finger in the eye of COngress and treats the EPA fascists as that brown stuff that gets on the bottom of your shoe from time to time. Alito understands property rights. Good appointment there W.

[Carry_Okie]

Was that Nixon's motive?

My understanding is that it was to collateralize Federal debt pursuant to the demands of the French. I have little doubt of it.

Do you have a link that would help to clear this up?

I wish I did. The details of the explanation were given to me in private conversation with Wayne Hage, although IIRC, he did mention it in Storm over Rangelands (I haven't checked it for a footnote). If you've read how his work is documented, you'd realize that if he said such a thing he had solid reason for saying it (G_d rest his soul; I'd love to have access to his library).

I have also heard Greenspan say on C-Span in Congressional testimony that the government needed to collateralize water resources in the West. I almost swallowed my teeth that he'd let that out in open session. I wish I'd have written down the venue so that I'd know where to look in the Library of Congress.