What’s your point?!? Yes, “really”. 1969. What year do you think the EPA was enacted? 1970. Exactly because of over-pollution in our country.
So maybe the EPA stops fining ranchers for making a stock pond on their own property by widening a small stream, stop calling creeks three feet wide navigational waters and instead keep their focus on the bigger issues. It’s when the pendulum swings too far in one direction that people start pushing back.
Yep, were not not for changes that were made our rivers might very well still be catching fire and our cities would be smog choked. BUt to hell with environmental regulations, who the hell needs clean air and water anyway. Make some $$$$$
There are reasons those rules were put into place, and republican Presidents finding ways around them. If Bush 41 decided that a wetland could be reclassified as an upland during a drought if they found an upland plant there. Then they approved housing developments that of course became flooded during the rains, and the residents asked for emergency relief. Billions in taxpayer dollars spent because some out of state developer found a plant growing where it shouldn’t have, and made a killing.
How George H.W. Bush (eventually) rescued U.S. wetlands Non president has been close to perfect on this. The EPA has out grown it’s purpose and is regulating with too far a reach.
This is a pretty far reaching statement. Please share with us how it has out grown its purpose. The examples you provided in post #24 is helpful, but are those rules comparable to say coal plants or fresh water? Congress has the power to reign in on the Executive Branch. To use the SCOTUS to say the entire administrative expertise set up by the Executive Branch to execute on the law written by Congress is unconstitutional would mean every agency should be dismantled. That’s crazy. No law could ever be enforced.
It was the last year before there was an EPA. While the result will not be immediate or as extreme, if the Supreme Court limits the power of the EPA, we will definitely experience environmental degradation and industries responsible for emissions and water pollution would be ecstatic if the US became more like China with respect to the environment.
Why is Gorsuch not conflicted? Makes no sense to me how a kid that grew up watching his mom resign as the head of the EPA in disgrace is anything but biased on the EPA.
Please notice that I never said SCOTUS should do that. My comment was that EPA needs to be reigned in. I believe the agency serves an important service. I also believe that it has out grown it’s original intent and needs to be trimmed back. The idea that everything must be one or the other, black or white awesome or terrible seems to be the new normal on this board. Yea just don’t see it that way.
This was a thread about SCOTUS. So you are suggesting that SCOTUS should not be the ones reigning in the EPA? That is up to Congress to limit the Executive Branch and EPA, correct?
Absolutely. I disagree that SCOTUS should rule in EPA… as far as I am aware. I don’t know of a good reason for them to rule on it. On the other hand I do feel strongly that congress should clip the EPA wings and reign them back in. My posts are not intended to be a agreement with SCOTUS ruling in EPA but more to point out that there should be some middle ground we can all agree on.. mostly that SCOTUS is the wrong way to do something that needs to be done.
thumbs up. What is cuckoo about this case is that it is what the EPA might put in place and not an actual regulation. It is a case about the EPA’s ability to regulate “beyond the fence”.
EPA ability to regulate wetlands severely curtailed if not eviscerated. The syllabus does not mention "major question" doctrine but sure sounds like it. Majority opinion (a lot of concurring in judgment) acknowledges that Congress gave authority to regulate wetlands, but only "adjacent" wetlands.
Don't know if the EPA should be completely disbanded, but I definitely think its power along with the power of most other federal agencies should be curbed. Experts should advise, not write rules. The only people who should write rules are people directly accountable to "the people."
I think a lot of people just don't like the EPA, but I don't think the primary issue with them is enforcement of laws, it's their ability to write rules despite not being directly accountable to the people. They're effectively a scapegoat for Congress. And any agency that has effective broad legislative authority needs to be reigned in by SCOTUS, by Congress, or both.
The EPA has to write specific regulations. Who do you think is going to do it? You want MTG and AOC arguing about how many parts per million are acceptable?
You don’t understand the role of administrative law. Congress has always given administrative agencies power to determine and effect legislative intent. Your gripe, and that of some others in this thread, is that you just don’t like the EPA giving a damn about our environment, and that, frankly, is disgracefully irresponsible. I can only conclude you don’t have descendants you care about.
