- News: Obama outlawing bullets. Reclassification & Internet
- News: IRS emails found criminal probe started. Paid 122K in bonus
- News: Clinton’s email. I want you to have the same ability
- Redoubt: Local nursery
- Thinking on making your retreat a business
This government-contrived tragedy near Naples, ID in 1992 – followed by Waco in ’93 – were the opening shots. Did we miss their meaning? Look back on these two 20-year-old events through what you now know about the expansion of unchecked government-power since. Do you like where we have gone?
My read on this is that, in large measure, the Supreme Court has kicked the can down the road on the real question of the relationship between unilateral bureaucracy actions vs. the individuals right to appeal to a court. In the face of increasing bureaucrat – ization of the country, the latter mater will no doubt rear it’s head soon. GE.
Who knew the Constitution applied to EPA?
The Associated Press reports:
The Supreme Court has sided with an Idaho couple in a property rights case, ruling they can go to court to challenge an Environmental Protection Agency order that blocked construction of their new home and threatened fines of more than $30,000 a day.
Wednesday’s decision is a victory for Mike and Chantell Sackett, whose property near a scenic lake has sat undisturbed since the EPA ordered a halt in work in 2007. The agency said part of the property was a wetlands that could not disturbed without a permit.
In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court rejected EPA’s argument that allowing property owners quick access to courts to contest orders like the one issued to the Sacketts would compromise the agency’s ability to deal with water pollution.
“Compliance orders will remain an effective means of securing…
View original post 180 more words
” … At issue before the high court is whether the Sacketts have a right to have a “timely and meaningful” hearing before a court to challenge a Clean Water Act wetlands-restoration order of a federal agency. About 3,000 administrative compliance orders are issued each year by the EPA.
A federal appeals court agreed with the agency the couple’s only remedy was to go through a lengthy wetlands permit process, which the Sacketts say would cost thousands more than the property is worth. The EPA still maintains the land is a wetland, and that the couple passed up the chance to work with federal officials for an “after-the-fact” permit, which may have resolved the situation quickly and cheaply, a remedy the government says it uses often for individual homeowners…”
But in arguments, a Justice Department lawyer struggled under a verbal onslaught of skepticism from a majority of justices. After hearing Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart makes his point, Justice Antonin Scalia replied, “I’m not going to bet my house on that.”
A key sticking point was whether the homeowners’ due process rights were violated when they were prevented from getting an injunction — stopping any government enforcement until a court could hear the claims. Stewart repeatedly said the Clean Water Act blocked — or “precluded” — any judicial review of compliance orders.
“You are talking about a huge upheaval,” said Justice Stephen Breyer. “For 75 years the (federal) courts have interpreted statutes with an eye towards permitting judicial review, not the opposite. And yet you are saying that this statute precludes review, and then the second thing you say is that this isn’t final. So I read the order. It looks like about as final a thing as I have ever seen.”
via News – Home.
“The reality of the Sacketts’ situation is that they have been unambiguously commanded by their government not to complete their home-building project, to take expensive measures to undo the improvements that they have made to their land, and to maintain their land essentially as a public park until the property is ‘restored’ to the satisfaction of the EPA. They have been threatened with frightening penalties if they do not immediately obey; but they have been refused the prompt hearing they should have received as a matter of right in any court,” Pacific Legal argued.