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.
“Dear Judge,
You see that “rule” in the name “Waters of the United States rule”? That means it’s an Executive regulation, not a piece of legislation. You have no jurisdiction over those. I have enclosed a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution for you to review in order to confirm this.
Sincerely,
President Donald Trump”
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; the same with the presence of certain plants. And of course, critters which might be considered endangered. Get rid of those problems before marketing the property or risk the consequences.
Never in writing though, always verbally.
LOL!
Why don’t you have Obama reinstate his own rule, judgey poo.
Yep! These Lefty judges are acting like little dictators.
LOL.. That is exactly what they are trying to do.. The little creeps.
Another minor Black-Robed Judiciarch who vastly exceeds his Constitutional authority and needs to be first, ignored, then, debenched, derobed, debarred and maybe defenestrated.
Democrats ignore court orders all the time.
Just ignore the judge and injunction.
Isn't it interesting that these idiot Attorneys General demand that the Federal Government take away the sovereignty of their state, and that some Bureaucrat in Washington D.C. make decisions that should be made by their State legislature, State EPA, or better yet by local City Councils or County Commissions?
Kinda makes me think they are Statist, Globalist activists, not people interested in keeping their own States as independent as possible. I wonder if they would like to see the 10th Amendment erased.
These Attorney Generals should be impeached or recalled or at least voted out as traitors to their states and constituents.
Unenforceable ruling
Judges cannot force administrations to enforce laws as Republicans learned taking Obama admin to court.
It is NOT a law.
I'd imagine that it would be a pretty steep climb to force the President to do anything in this area.
In fact, if push comes to shove, Trump could really muck it all up and say that he's abolishing the EPA.
Might take their minds off the silly stuff for awhile.
Doesn’t say who was harmed and how...where...when.
Go pound sand judge.
Easy way, appeal the ruling. Easier way, ignore the judge.
Harder way, impeach the judge, Mr. Ryan.
5.56mm
Attorney General with balls
Did this jack off not recuse himself from the Russia, Russia, Russia only?
Oh wait.....
Until these activist judges get replaced with real Americans, the only antidote is to publicly embarrass them for their shameless overreach and their communist ways in general.
Ridicule them - in the press, on air, in the halls of Congress.
So one president can make a rule by executive directive and if some judge likes that rule that judge can overrule a succeeding president that makes a different decision? Under Trump the level at which the courts are showing their own disregard for the Constitution and the law has increased many times over.
Another factor is this has been written about by a Constitutional legal authority. That factor is a Constitutional error district judges have been making recently, even before Trump. The legal history, until recently, has been that the injunction power of district courts was limited to their own jurisdiction, and Constitutionally they have no power to make any “national” injunctions. Trump and Sessions should, at the SCOTUS attack the judges in this case on both the error of judges thinking they write executive orders and that they have injunction powers that are not theirs.
Obama’s clean water rule? Was that an executive order or a law passed by congress?
procedural problem. that can be gotten around.
Is “customary” a legally required time frame?
“The courts have the authority to uphold, vacate, or remand the WOTUS rule. If the lower courts uphold the rule, it will simplify greatly the task of the agencies in determining which waters are subject to CWA regulation. If the lower courts vacate the rule, the agencies will be right back where they were after the Rapanos decision. Absent legislation to clarify the scope of the CWA, the agencies will continue to evaluate a wider scope of waters based on resource-intensive, site-by-site analysis. A court also might remand the rule to the agencies, e.g., for further analysis or explanation or to cure an important procedural requirement the agencies may have violated in adopting the rule. That action would cause continuing uncertainty regarding the jurisdictional status of water bodies no different from what existed prior to the WOTUS rule and would require the agencies to address whatever defects the court identified in subsequent rule making.
Depending on the fate of the rule in the lower courts, it could be headed back to the US Supreme Court for a 4th round. However, the Supreme Court has discretion regarding whether it will review lower court cases, and because of the volume of cases presented to the Court each year, the Justices decline to review most cases presented. The Supreme Court is most likely to review the rule if a “circuit split” occurs in which conflicting decisions are issued by 2 or more of the US Courts of Appeals, which is likely to occur at some point. The most optimistic aspect of the posture left by the new WOTUS rule is that the issue of the scope of CWA jurisdiction under the text of the statute and the Constitution may be more clearly presented for resolution the next time the issue reaches the Supreme Court.”
Bottom line, the CWA is bad legislation if it’s getting bounced around by the courts. It should be immediately repealed and replaced with a much simpler Act restricting EPA’s authority to arbitrarily endorse it with administrative rules beyond the scope as-written.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/684002
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.