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 next last
To: Kevin in California

“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”


81 posted on 08/17/2018 8:27:16 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
If some bureaucrat pays a visit and tells me I can’t mow back there, I will personally kick his butt.

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.

82 posted on 08/17/2018 8:36:04 AM PDT by JimRed ( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Kevin in California

LOL!

Why don’t you have Obama reinstate his own rule, judgey poo.


83 posted on 08/17/2018 8:44:18 AM PDT by chris37 ("I am everybody." -Mark Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

CONGRESS is their Daddy, CONGRESS "ordained and established" the inferior lower courts, it is the job of CONGRESS to reign in the recalcitrant Judges.
84 posted on 08/17/2018 8:47:57 AM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

Yep! These Lefty judges are acting like little dictators.


85 posted on 08/17/2018 8:55:08 AM PDT by DivineMomentsOfTruth ("There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and persue it steadily." -GW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BeauBo

LOL.. That is exactly what they are trying to do.. The little creeps.


86 posted on 08/17/2018 9:00:19 AM PDT by DivineMomentsOfTruth ("There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and persue it steadily." -GW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: All

Another minor Black-Robed Judiciarch who vastly exceeds his Constitutional authority and needs to be first, ignored, then, debenched, derobed, debarred and maybe defenestrated.


87 posted on 08/17/2018 9:11:23 AM PDT by LegendHasIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Democrats ignore court orders all the time.


88 posted on 08/17/2018 9:12:34 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kevin in California
Do what obozo did.

Just ignore the judge and injunction.

89 posted on 08/17/2018 9:17:18 AM PDT by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
"At the same time, 11 Democratic state attorneys general filed a similar lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York."

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.

90 posted on 08/17/2018 9:21:51 AM PDT by LegendHasIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Kevin in California

Unenforceable ruling

Judges cannot force administrations to enforce laws as Republicans learned taking Obama admin to court.


91 posted on 08/17/2018 9:31:59 AM PDT by sickoflibs ('Equal protection' only applies to illegals not you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
"Waters of the U.S. Rule" is just that. It's a "rule" cooked up by the EPA and the Department of the Army.

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.

92 posted on 08/17/2018 9:36:20 AM PDT by skimbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Kevin in California

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


93 posted on 08/17/2018 9:37:09 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pravious

Attorney General with balls

Did this jack off not recuse himself from the Russia, Russia, Russia only?

Oh wait.....


94 posted on 08/17/2018 9:39:49 AM PDT by Uversabound (Might does not make right, but it does enforce the commonly recognized rights of each succeeding gen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kevin in California

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.


95 posted on 08/17/2018 9:45:20 AM PDT by MichaelCorleone (Jesus Christ is not a religion. He's the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin in California

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.


96 posted on 08/17/2018 9:52:41 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin in California

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.


97 posted on 08/17/2018 9:57:44 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin in California

Obama’s clean water rule? Was that an executive order or a law passed by congress?


98 posted on 08/17/2018 10:04:21 AM PDT by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnBrowdie
Opponents said EPA avoided the customary 30-day waiting period between the rule's finalization and its effective date, circumventing the Administrative Procedures Act, or APA.

procedural problem. that can be gotten around.


Is “customary” a legally required time frame?

99 posted on 08/17/2018 10:20:05 AM PDT by az_gila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kevin in California

“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


100 posted on 08/17/2018 11:15:14 AM PDT by logi_cal869 (-cynicus-)
[ 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 next 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