2023 Supreme Court Decision on the Clean Water Act

[Grif]

We need some better judges on the court to protect duck habitat and clean water. Hopefully Biden gets a chance to nominate some common sense.

 

[Missy Skeeter]

A 9-0 decision rebuking EPA’s claim to limitless regulatory authority and that the Sacketts’ land is not subject to the Clean Water Act.

While all Justices agreed on the judgment, they had different theories on what exactly does fall under the scope of the Clean Water Act.

Writing for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the CWA extends to only streams, oceans, rivers and lakes, and those wetlands with a "continuous surface connection to those bodies."

The court's liberals signed on to a separate opinion by Justice Elena Kagan. Pointing to the air and water pollution cases, they accused the majority of appointing itself, instead of Congress as the national policymaker on the environment.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by the court's three liberal members, said that by narrowing the act to cover only adjoining wetlands, the court's new test will have "significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States."

 

[SRW]

You're missing the point.

It's not going to get done.

And if they had the power to do so, they wouldn't even propose it.

White House, Republicans strike a deal to raise the debt ceiling and avoid default

The White House and Republicans have reached an agreement in principle to raise the debt ceiling and avert a default, according to multiple reports. Several news outlets are reporting that President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy have reached a tentative deal to raise the nation's...

www.theblaze.com

 

[OneShotBandit]

No. This rolls it WAY back. Folks are still digesting it to figure out what the repercussions will be, but it’s definitely a huge step back for protections. Hopefully congress will figure out how to shore it up legally. If not, this really could be crippling for waterfowl.

Well, Bill "THEY" do want "us" to quit hunting! IMOO of course.

 

[bill cooksey]

I’m far from an expert on the topic, and the “experts” I’ve heard from so far fall into either the “victory for property owners” or “we’re doomed and will never recover” camp. I’m hoping to find someone who really knows the ins and outs and can discuss it in a rational way.

If anyone happens to run across one on television or online, let me know.

 

[SRW]

I’m far from an expert on the topic, and the “experts” I’ve heard from so far fall into either the “victory for property owners” or “we’re doomed and will never recover” camp. I’m hoping to find someone who really knows the ins and outs and can discuss it in a rational way.

A pretty reliable litmus test, which camp is the left in?

 

[Mean Gene]

I’m far from an expert on the topic, and the “experts” I’ve heard from so far fall into either the “victory for property owners” or “we’re doomed and will never recover” camp. I’m hoping to find someone who really knows the ins and outs and can discuss it in a rational way.

If anyone happens to run across one on television or online, let me know.

It won't be either extreme, never is, but that won't stop folks from knowing exactly what's going to happen.

 

[bill cooksey]

A pretty reliable litmus test, which camp is the left in?

I often find both equally absurd. I think the decision was probably the correct one for the court, and I’d also like to see Congress really strengthen the CWA to protect more small and/or seasonal wetlands. There’s a hell of a lot more to water flow than constant surface contact.

 

[SRW]

I often find both equally absurd.

One side despises the constitution.

 

[bill cooksey]

One side despises the constitution.

If all an individual needs to know in order to form an opinion on an issue is which side of the political aisle the opinion is from, that person is a moron.