The next SCOTUS target won’t be gay marriage. It will be…

Those are the same thing when it comes to practical application. Here the judges defined what 'wetland' meant in terms of application instead of a federal agency. Neither of those parties wrote the law, but in a way they did in how they say it should apply. Do you think its practical for congress to address every ambiguity when it comes up? And mind you this only comes up after it is actually applied, someone objects, and argues in court and the court rules in their favor by kicking it back to congress. Its basically judicial supremacy.

 

You don't understand the issues...at all. We went through this before. How can you be so confused about so many things?

 

Koch Industries is one of, if not the largest, polluters in the US. So, look for PR, white papers from conservative think tanks, and proposed laws telling us pollution is patriotic and good for the country. Not kidding.

 

No, nor would it make sense. That's what the courts are for.

And if Congress doesn't like the interpretation, they can write a new law clarifying it.

 

They simply don't give a shit. They figure they'll be dead before anything drastic happens, so it's their kids' and grand kids' problem.

 

Although it is recent precedent, once someone becomes a member of SCOTUS there are no more conflicts of interest.

 

Courts are for determining what congress meant when they made a law deferring enforcement to an executive agency? That seems like a power grab to me.

 

Well, to be precise extinct species are already a lost cause and rare and endangered animals are the purview of the USFWS/USGS subject to the Endangered Species Act written by Congress and passed in 1973 under the Nixon admin.

 

this will have major ripples in my world. The only way right now to get review of protected species issues is through coordination with US Fish and Wildlife service during the ACOE permitting process (now being handled by FDEP). Client's legal team now in overdrive trying to figure out how this will impact thousands of acres currently under review based on the old rule where ACOE claimed wetlands well away from any navigable waterway. Not sure if those applications are no longer needed based on this ruling

 

My point was that when wetlands go away and pollution destroys ecosystems you can add more to the list.

 

As an additional possible factor, there are a significant percentage of Americans (Pew says 39%) who believe we are living in the End Times. Not sure how that stacks up against other countries, but I have often wondered the extent to which this may influence peoples' interest in addressing what they see as long-term problems (if they see them as problems at all).

About four-in-ten U.S. adults believe humanity is ‘living in the end times’

 

Or worse yet, some what to bring it about so they can get all raptured and shit.

 

I mean we kinda are, but I think those people believe we don't have agency over the things that will end us if we stay on this course.

 

I was in the grocery check out recently and the very nice cashier mentioned something to me about the world going crazy or she wasn't sure how much longer it'd be around or something along those lines. I kind of reflexively responded that I think people want to believe that we are living in a very unique time and also that people are fearful that the party is going to continue without us when we die. When she told me that she's a Christian, I suddenly felt a little bad like I had rained on her parade. But she was very cool about it.

 

That always needs to get sorted out. I didn't closely read the opinion, only the syllabus. Also, I didn't read the specific order on whether it was remanded back to reconsider the rule or whether they just said it was specific to that dispute. A lot of variability.

And obviously, the definition of wetlands has wide effect. But I think the more significant part of the opinion is just undermine the power of a regulatory agency generally. It's a sufficiently arcane issue that opinion without necessarily public reaction, even if it has a lot of overall impact.

 

As opposed to the “folks” in NYC, SF, Chicago, and many others who all go out of their way to make sure their streets and sidewalks sparkle?

What a moronic post. People are people. Some clean up for themselves and some don’t. At least in “gods country” I can’t see a used condom on the ground on the side of the road as I saw on the floor of an MTA car last fall.

 

the state still regulates wetlands and, in my experience, the state and the ACOE usually apply the same standards with respect to allowable impacts and required mitigation for impacts.

 

10 - 15 years ago the ACOE didn't claim those wetlands though. the "reach" by ACOE across uplands from a navigable water body is a relatively new regulatory decision that I never agreed with. The ACOE was given the responsibility to take care of navigable waterways. If I have a wetland that is 1000' from a navigable waterway the ACOE should not be able to claim jurisdiction over that wetland

I don't think they undermined them as much as they set limits.

 

I understand. This is far from a specialty area. But from my limited understanding, and I obviously would defer to you, there are plenty scenarios where wetlands a 1000' away can have very significant impact depending upon the plan. Again, this is very much out of my expertise area on the technical level. I would just prefer to have some continuing role for the agency. I realize I can make matters inefficient, but there are other interests