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

To: stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; Scoutmaster; Danae; CharlesWayneCT; nathanbedford; ...
(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?"

92 posted on 03/21/2012 11:46:28 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Fool me once, shame on you -- twice, shame on me -- 100 times, it's U. S. immigration policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]


To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas

BUMP


93 posted on 03/21/2012 11:52:24 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | 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