[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.

[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.

[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?"

[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?"