I don't understand how the Supreme Court came up with this "continuous surface connection" definition. Can they just make up such definitions on their own?
Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
31–40 of 149 posts
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#32The recent decision didn’t so much “strike down” the protections, but rather ruled that the relevant law does not apply to the wetlands the EPA used to apply it to. There was previous ruling, which according to SCOTUS, was erroneous, and so it reversed it. This is perfectly reasonable if you look at the original law and intent behind it, and the wetlands the federal agency no longer can claim control over. The origin…
> Now, I believe that federal government could actually argue that the random wetlands actually can be under its jurisdiction, if they affect the water in other states, eg. through ground water flows etc. However, they will need to pass a new law to assert that, instead of leaning on old law that clearly did not mean to cover this.
You can also raise the counterpoint here: 45 years of precedent says they're included, and if you don't like it, pass a law saying it doesn't.
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#33I'm all for protecting true wetlands, but I'm aware of a specific instance in my county where a 'wetland' is nonsense. My friend owns rural property that was once mined for coal (not surface mining). He has sinkholes on his property from the former mine shafts. There is a sinkhole that straddles his property line with his neighbor and this sinkhole is from a former mine shaft. The sinkhole has never been filled in an…
Sounds like a wetland to me. You can argue that artificially created wetlands shouldn't qualify for protection but that doesn't seem obvious to me.
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they will need to pass a new law to assert that Exactly. The law as written was misinterpreted. Write a new law.
They won't because their donors and friends don't want one. So all you'll get is impotent complaining about the supreme court.
You could argue that it was the same for roe.
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#35The recent decision didn’t so much “strike down” the protections, but rather ruled that the relevant law does not apply to the wetlands the EPA used to apply it to. There was previous ruling, which according to SCOTUS, was erroneous, and so it reversed it. This is perfectly reasonable if you look at the original law and intent behind it, and the wetlands the federal agency no longer can claim control over. The origin…
> they will need to pass a new law to assert that Exactly. The law as written was misinterpreted. Write a new law.
They really should but it will be difficult to fund.
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congress specifically wrote the law to protect wetlands. The issue of "wetlands" as you put it actually came up while congress was drafting the laws, and congress specifically wrote the law to cover them. The Supreme Court just ignored this because it felt like it. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44585
> issue of "wetlands" as you put it actually came up while congress was drafting the laws, and congress specifically wrote the law to cover them. The Supreme Court just ignored this because it felt like it This is a bad reading of the opinion. Wetlands were broadly undefined in statute.
Statutes are frequently written in vague terms with the intent of having the executive branch make a reasonable interpretation, e.g. the rule-making body says "The park shall be kept clean and well maintained," and the executive branch comes up with their interpretation.
Problems can arise when people with wealth and money at stake take issue with the executive branch's interpretation. They can do things like take judges on vacations, get into beneficial financial transactions with them, and do expensive favors for them or their family members. Then, when those people end up with cases before the Supreme Court, because there are absolutely no enforceable ethics rules, the justices conveniently discover that there are principles at stake.
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#37Watersheds aren't a local resource - they're a regional resource. This decision made no sense to begin with since, for instance, Vermont acting like a bad neighbor will cause environmental devastation in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York - water sheds very rarely stay neatly within state boundaries. This becomes an even bigger issue when you look at the Mississippi - mining in North Dakota can cause issues in L…
> Watersheds aren't a local resource - they're a regional resource.
I’d go even further than that. Lots of migratory birds and animals use them.
It’s pretty amazing being around when the mega flocks of birds land.
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#38This quote is just stupid: "Where the Supreme Court is tying the hands of the federal government". Congress could, if they actually wanted to, pass a law that would regulate these lands. All the the Supreme Court did is rule that, at least so far, congress has not done so. And yet somehow this is the Supreme Court's fault.
[flagged]
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#39Watersheds aren't a local resource - they're a regional resource. This decision made no sense to begin with since, for instance, Vermont acting like a bad neighbor will cause environmental devastation in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York - water sheds very rarely stay neatly within state boundaries. This becomes an even bigger issue when you look at the Mississippi - mining in North Dakota can cause issues in L…
> This decision made no sense to begin with since Again, if Congress wanted to fix this, they have the authority. The decision simply said they have not yet actually done so.
I'm trying to understand if the people saying "congress can just fix this" every time the supreme court makes a ruling,
a) Don't agree that congress is blocked and is never going to pass anything.
b) Care more about the legalities than the issues themselves, and so don't really care about whether there is a plausible way through congress.
c) Are making a cry for help for everyone to come together to fix congress. Hoping that if things get bad enough, people will finally wake up and get congress working again.
d) Trust that the supreme court will vote in their favour, and are just concern trolling / trying to distract their political opponents by referring to congress.
Let me know if I missed any other options.
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#40[flagged]
Do you have a script dude. You seem to have this same comment on almost every thread that has anything to do with law.