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

Skip to comments.

Federal judge orders Trump to reinstate Obama's Waters of the US rule
Washington Examiner ^ | 08-17-2018 | Josh Siegel

Posted on 08/17/2018 7:03:55 AM PDT by Kevin in California

A federal judge issued a nationwide injunction Thursday against the Trump administration for delaying the Obama-era Waters of the United States rule, dealing a setback to a key piece of President Trump's deregulatory agenda.

The decision by the U.S. District Court in South Carolina means that the so-called Clean Water Rule is again operative in 26 states where district courts have not halted the regulation.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: acherrytreetoofar; dncjudicialactivist; environment; fedjudgepresident; grabbypoppyjudge; juckthefudge; surfacewater; thebabyharpsealcure; thelawisinmymouth; water; watersoftheus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-117 last
To: Moonman62

Congress could limit the jurisdiction of the courts so that only the Supreme Court could rule on the constitutionality of any federal law or executive order. Could. But they won’t.


101 posted on 08/17/2018 11:24:12 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (Freep mail me if you want to be on my Fingerstyle Acoustic Guitar Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger; Kevin in California; cotton1706
Oh, look - another Federal judge-president has weighed in to the governing of the United States from the replica Oval Office in his judge's chambers...

This one is a Grabby Poppy judge - GHW Bush, the senior globalist.

Bet he's cackling in his oatmeal this morning...

102 posted on 08/17/2018 11:24:23 AM PDT by kiryandil (Never pick a fight with an angry beehive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Clarence Thomas made a comment about the topic recently in a decision. Perhaps that means the Supreme Court can do something about it, too.


103 posted on 08/17/2018 11:26:15 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Give a man a fish and he'll be a Democrat. Teach a man to fish and he'll be a responsible citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Quote: “If the sky’s the limit... Federal judge rules Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election, orders Trump to turn over Presidency to true winner.”

Honestly, with the trajectory that the leftist judiciary is currently on, could you not envision that happening?


104 posted on 08/17/2018 11:49:10 AM PDT by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: nickedknack
At some point, PDJT must invoke the Constitution and the separation of powers and tell these tyrants in black robes to ***k themselves. No judge has any authority over a president to tell him which executive orders he must or must not enforce.

He should have done that when the first circuit court judge put a stop on his first travel ban. Instead, he appealed the ruling through the higher courts, which did nothing but grant the Judicial branch even more power over the Executive.

It was an error of major strategic importance, and I said so at the time.

105 posted on 08/17/2018 12:15:18 PM PDT by Windflier (Pitchforks and torches ripen on the vine. Left too long, they become black rifles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
SCOTUS needs to issue a blanket smackdown of all circuit courts.

No. That only reinforces and further cements the high court's unconstitutional supremacy over the Executive branch.

They could just as easily uphold the lower court's authority to run roughshod over the office of the president, as they're now doing.

The correct response is for the Executive branch to assert its constitutional and lawful authority to make and enforce national policy, as regards the function of that branch of the federal government.

106 posted on 08/17/2018 12:23:27 PM PDT by Windflier (Pitchforks and torches ripen on the vine. Left too long, they become black rifles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FlipWilson
We've seen state courts order selective polling places remain open hours after closing time.

We've seen state courts order candidate replacements after absentee ballots have been sent out.

We've seen state courts order "found" ballots to be counted.

We've seen dead candidates' "wins" counted as vacancies instead of as ineligible and wasted votes.

We've seen state courts order selective county recounts.

We've seen the United States Supreme Court order the stopping of selective county recounts, ruling that entire states must be recounted if any recounts are to take place.

We've not yet seen courts rule that a vote for one candidate must be counted for another. Florida came close in considering whether an undervote (no presidential vote when the rest of the ballot was straight party) should count for the same party (they said there was no implied intent to vote for the President).

We've not yet seen a court overturn an election and award the seat to the loser.

-PJ

107 posted on 08/17/2018 12:36:50 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Agree wholeheartedly.


108 posted on 08/17/2018 1:16:27 PM PDT by nickedknack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Quote: “we have not yet. . .”

“Yet” being my point exactly. The left doesn’t like to lose because they feel they are entitled to win. Like a snowflake being triggered, a Federal Judge wields his or her power to create their own safe space and shove it don’t win the rest of the Country’s throat.


109 posted on 08/17/2018 2:17:38 PM PDT by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

“As a real estate agent, I have advised clients and potential clients seeking to buy or sell parcels of land to do due diligence. If there is a recurring mud puddle it may be declared a wetland and greatly devalue the property...”

This issue was addressed by the USSC in Rampanos v US. Also in SWANCC v US.

In it’s most simple terms, the USSC said that puddles and streams are not navigable waters. The issue of so-called wetlands is irrelevant under laws passed by congress.


110 posted on 08/17/2018 4:25:52 PM PDT by sergeantdave (Teach a man to fish and he'll steal your gear and sell it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: FlipWilson
It's a sad state of affairs. The Left doesn't like to lose, and the Right doesn't like to fight.

-PJ

111 posted on 08/17/2018 5:25:39 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Kevin in California

The nonsense that a district court can issue a national injunction is garbage on its face. The SC needs to smack these birches down


112 posted on 08/17/2018 5:35:12 PM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LostPassword

I live in mortal fear of this. I am in a blue state (for about 3/4 more years) and I live dangerously close to a mosquito infested swamp...errrr, I mean “wetland.”

I did not know this when I purchased the property but it is now confirmed and I always wonder when some offshoot of the EPA Nazi will come striding in and tell me that my 2 story garage that we put up (with a town permit) is “too close” to the mosquito infested swamp.

that and the value of your property plummets. Of course you still have to pay exorbitant TAXES on said property.


113 posted on 08/19/2018 1:37:52 PM PDT by AbolishCSEU (Amount of "child" support paid is inversely proportionate to mother's actual parenting of children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

That was in 2006. The advising was mostly in the 1980s and 90s, when the green mafia was running wild, well before the USSC decision.

The greenies are still likely to claim that some endangered critter or plant inhabits your property, though.


114 posted on 08/19/2018 2:16:39 PM PDT by JimRed ( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

As I am sure you have read, one Justice has stated that they are getting sick of this chit.


115 posted on 08/19/2018 4:15:11 PM PDT by houeto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive
Couldn’t another judge issue a reinstatement? Why does that one judge win? Because he was first?

I'm baffled too. I don't remember that in the Constitution. And if it ain't in the Constitution, it can be fixed.

116 posted on 08/19/2018 4:18:02 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kevin in California

Trump and company did not follow legislated administrative procedures. Go back, follow the law as written, delay implementation. Period and simple.


117 posted on 08/20/2018 11:36:11 AM PDT by dirtymac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-117 last

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.

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