Top Court Split Over Wetlands Protections

<snip>

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5896911,00.html

them it is appropriate.

This is a matter for the legislature. Open, undeveloped land is a public good,
and the regulator that is defending the public good in the planning process is
not present except as a court... because no legislator wants to dispute the
absolution of property rights by defending the public weal.

as wetlands . . .

scam. The legal details are sketchy to me, as well the courts apparently...

June 19, 2006
Court Splits Over Wetlands Protections
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, June 19 — The Supreme Court set the stage for a re-examination of the 1972 Clean Water Act, as it narrowly ruled today in favor of two Michigan property owners who have sought to develop tracts designated as wetlands.

By 5 to 4, the justices overturned lower court judgments against the Michigan land owners, who had run afoul of the Clean Water Act over their plans to build a shopping mall and condominiums.

The ruling was not the resounding, unambiguous triumph that the land owners, John A. Rapanos and June Carabell, may have hoped for. Instead, five justices found that regulators may have gone too far in trying to thwart their plans, and it returned the case to lower courts for further deliberation. One of the five justices, Anthony M. Kennedy, even suggested in a separate opinion that the property owners might lose once again in the lower courts.

Whatever happens in the cases of Mr. Rapanos and Ms. Carabell, the splintered outcome at the Supreme Court not only guaranteed more litigation in the lower courts, it also may prompt more debate in Congress, should the lawmakers feel obliged to refine the language of the Clean Water Act to minimize future confusion.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. expressed disappointment that the court had not reached agreement on the limits that Congress had placed on the reach of the Clean Water Act, and he predicted much litigation ahead. "Lower courts and regulated entities will now have to feel their way on a case-by-case basis," he wrote.Justice Antonin Scalia announced the judgment of the court, and wrote an opinion joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Justice Kennedy wrote an opinion concurring in the overall judgment but not with all aspects of Justice Scalia's finding.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/washington/19cnd-wetlands.html?ei=5094&en=d36aa195bc2f85bc&hp=&ex=1150776000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

They will vote in lockstep on every issue except the most mundane. Our rights are in jeopardy. I have no hope for Alito; I had some that maybe Roberts would surprise. So far, I am wrong.

has hurt states and individuals thanks to Republicans.

They have set themselves up as "flip-floppers" now if they follow your advice.

The media will say:

"But you voted for him, and you opposed the filibuster- in your speeches you talked about how qualified & honest he was- why are you flip-flopping?"

Oh well, they hardly ever listen to the base, no matter how many times we get it right- and they always wind up as "flip-floppers" when they dont.

Gotta love those "dry powder" DEMS who sided with Bush instead of us on the Alito filibuster- how could we have ever doubted their beltway wisdom?

as a mistake -- they are getting -- along with the repukes -- what they knew they would get.

I bopped in to DU months ago and saw a lot of threads on powder dry and never knew that they referred to the court nominations. I must have missed those headlines.

This assinine talking point was repeated in a reassuring tone over and over during the Roberts & Meirs nominations.

Of course, when "the next time" came around, they were still "keeping it dry."

Legend has it that there is a mega-grain silo somewhere in Maryland or Virginia full of the stuff- and dry as ever!!!

That was my first activist endeavor, other than donations. It was easy to get signatures for this at anti-war rallies in 2003.

"Keeping their powder dry" refers to *EVERY*
every opportunity that the Dems have had to
act like an actual opposition party but, instead
of firing a shot, have simply surrendered, keeping
their gunpowder dry and ready for another battle.

Only they *NEVER* seem to decide to actually go
to battle and spend any of that dry powder fighting
any battles.

On Supreme Court nominations, on appeals court
nominations, on Bush cabinet members, on legislation,
on *ANYTHING*!

Tesha

background was in medicine and civil engineering, once said he thought the single largest contribution to the overall improvement of human health was clean water created and preserved for humans via legislation such as the Clean Water Act.

We're in deep trouble if they start contaminating our water and make it available only through purchase. Then it will truly be a time in which only "the haves" will survive.

Their guts aren't being eaten by the horrors of what they're doing, like ours are.

on a case-by-case basis, doesn't that open the door for a brazilian lawsuits from every jerk developer?

the fact though that they ruled in favor of the developers means that the Corps overstepped its authority in regulating those particular wetlands using the criteria they did to assert jurisdiction.

more than likely the Corps and EPA will revise their policies on what types of wetlands and waters are jurisdictional in an attempt to avoid the endless litigation that would come if they maintain their current policies. nevertheless, I suspect when the new policies are put in place, developers will challenge those as well.

ment plan based on regs that were based on state laws and the CWA, the developers sued or threatened a suit. The repuke-dominated selectmen (like a mayor and town council) got rid of the 3 most knowledgeable, experienced members of the commission, who are appointed. The newly reconstituted commission still has some conflicts with developers but there are no lawsuits recently.

This is the way to deal with pesky wetland lawsuits---get rid of your best wetlands commissioners and you won't have any lawsuits because development will just sail through. :sarcasm:

it only applies to Federal jurisdiction of the CWA administered by the Corps and EPA.