Wednesday, March 21, 2012

EPA knocked off its Christmas tree!


EPA & Dems Bitch-slapped
Unanimous Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Property Owners in Sackett v. EPA



Res Ipsa Loquitur


This says it all ...
.

The position taken in this case by the Federal Government—a position that the Court now squarely rejects—would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) employees.

The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy. The EPA may issue a compliance order demanding that the owners cease construction, engage in expensive remedial measures, and abandon any use of the property. If the owners do not do the EPA’s bidding, they may be fined up to $75,000 per day ($37,500 for violating the Act and another $37,500 for violating the compliance order). And if the owners want their day in court to show that their lot does not include covered wetlands, well, as a practical matter, that is just too bad. Until the EPA sues them, they are blocked from access to the courts, and the EPA may wait as long as it wants before deciding to sue. By that time, the potential fines may easily have reached the millions. In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable. Justice Alito's concurring opinion

I am gob smacked that it was unamimous.  Shows just how far this rogue agency has been driven by the enviro-wacko lobby.






7 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's about time a Fed agency got bit by the poisonous fruit of "...as the Secretary shall determine." The #$%^*& Progs just love to hide behind that phrase in order to anonymously seize another inch of control over our lives while pretending to do good.
Now, who will reimburse the plaintiff for the loss of his lot for years and his huge legal costs?
What remedy does that poor family have to avoid a Pyrric victory?
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick

Jess said...

The crying shame is that they'll face more legal fees and lose time to enjoy what they purchased.

The government has tremendous resources to drag a case out until the plaintiff quits, or starves.

Anonymous said...

"...He has sent forth his agents to harass our people and eat out their substance..." - Declaration of Independence.

Anonymous said...

I sure hope the Feds don't get wind about my back yard. About the only thing missing out there is an alligator. But that is the price of living in the Pacific Northwest.

Scottiebill

molonlabe28 said...

It's so because a bureaucrat says it's so.

So what's the problem?

This spanking was nice to see.

It points up the need for juror nullification.

TheOldMan said...

This is why I have supported the Pacific Legal Foundation since 1983. I recommend that everyone do so.

Anonymous said...

"In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property"

What nation would that be?

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.