Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

pilotonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 149 posts

Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

#101

Post by cmh89 »

ksherlock wrote: post #97
cmh89 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's what the judiciary is for. Right, and the judiciary has 45 years of precedent that the wetlands are included. This radicalized illegitmate SCOTUS just threw out the protections because their corporate owners benefit from it.

You don't you just hate those radicalized 9-0 SCOTUS rulings? Chantell and Michael Sackett went to the Supreme Court twice. Twice! Unanimous rulings in their favor both times. Sacketts: 18, EPA: 0. Due to court turnover they had 13 unique SCOTUS justices find in their favor.

You mean the 9-0 that says they don't have a corruption problem despite mounting evidence of decades of bribes?

Am I supposed to pretend that the liberal justices aren't also corrupt?

Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

#102

Post by pavon »

justrealist wrote: post #3

The title is kinda deceptive in that those lands weren't under federal protection until relatively recently when the EPA claimed jurisdiction over all lands which occasionally touched something that was wet.

This is simply not true. The Obama administration passed new rules in 2015, but the courts issued an injunction and they never took force. Then the Trump administration then passed new rules in 2020, which were overturned by the courts the next year. Finally, the Biden administration reset to rules to what they were before 2015. Sackett v. EPA was regarding those older rules.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruling in that case invalidates every interpretation of the CWA that both EPA and the US Army Corp of Engineers have had going back to it's inception in 1972.

Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

#103

Post by thomasahle »

detroitcoder wrote: post #51
thomasahle wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Hop…

It is often: e.) Want to limit the federal executive branch of government which some believe has grown too powerful.

I was thinking of this as a variant of (d), where you're betting the supreme court will mostly take powers away from the government.

Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

#104

Post by banana_feather »

liquidgecka wrote: post #85
cmh89 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's what the judiciary is for. Right, and the judiciary has 45 years of precedent that the wetlands are included. This radicalized illegitmate SCOTUS just threw out the protections because their corporate owners benefit from it.

You use the term "This radicalized illegitimate SCOTUS" but you realize that the court was unanimous that the EPA had overstepped its authority under the law right?

There was most certainly not unanimity on the redefinition of wetlands, which is what they were talking about.

Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

#105

Post by thomasahle »

zdragnar wrote: post #50
thomasahle wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Hop…

The "so..." clause in (B) is irrelevant. Any solution that doesn't pass conditional muster is temporary, at best. Relying on unconstitutional measures to enact the change you want invites unfortunately measures to enact changes you don't like. The only way to address the issue is to do so legally.

Maybe it should be an "and" instead of "so". At least it sounds like you do believe it is possible to change things legally, as it couldn't be the only way, if it's not a way. So maybe you're on (a)?

Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

#106

Post by 015UUZn8aEvW »

prpl wrote: post #91
015UUZn8aEvW wrote: post #70

In my job, I’ve gotten some pretty detailed experience with this part of the Clean Water Act. Not mentioned in this article is the fact that the “substantial nexus” standard just rejected by the Supreme Court was ridiculously vague, and the process by which landowners could determine whether there existed a “substantial nexus” between wet-ish areas on their property and navigable waterways was ridiculously slow and u…

It’s easy to bash big government but a well-funded agencies (like the USGS?) should be responsible for bringing clarity to things like this through surveys and research. Unfortunately, I am not sure either party truly believes in funding well-ran professional agencies to serve the people (for different reasons)

Yeah, there should be maps of the boundaries of Waters of the United States just like there are FEMA maps of flood plains.

Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

#107

Post by aksss »

cmh89 wrote: post #47
zdragnar wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress shouldn't have to constantly pass laws just to tell the executive branch that they are abusing their powers. That's what the judiciary is for. My uncle has a small stream running through his back yard, counted as "navigable water" despite the fact that I could jump across it as a child and it wasn't deep enough to support anything but a paper boat. I'm also not saying we shouldn't have protections for the en…

> That's what the judiciary is for. Right, and the judiciary has 45 years of precedent that the wetlands are included. This radicalized illegitmate SCOTUS just threw out the protections because their corporate owners benefit from it.

> 45 years of precedent

What is this 45-year-old precedent of which you speak? The CWA itself? It's worth noting that the Sacketts have been wrapped up in challenging the agency decision in the courts for nearly 20 years. Regulatory agencies stretching the bounds of their authority until they come to a head in the courts is not unique to the CWA or the EPA, but is a phenomenon typical of the interplay between the Judiciary and Executive branch. A regulatory agency claiming their decisions are not subject to any judicial review is.. a position, I guess.

> Radicalized illegitimate SCOTUS

That comment seems quite radical. SCOTUS unanimously decided this case, FWIW. SCOTUS looked at the plain language of the statute, which seems like a great place to start and end the review. What has been determined to be illegitimate is the breadth of EPA's claimed authority under the law as written.

Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

#108

Post by baryphonic »

nostromo wrote: post #65
cmh89 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's what the judiciary is for. Right, and the judiciary has 45 years of precedent that the wetlands are included. This radicalized illegitmate SCOTUS just threw out the protections because their corporate owners benefit from it.

The whole point of a supreme court is to set precedent, as they have with many other decisions that you probably like, like Brown v. Board of Education and Obergefell v. Hodges. Besides, laws matter. If you want something done, you have to pass a law. If you don't have the votes, then go do the work and convince more people to vote with you. Edit: it actually wasn't set precedent from the supreme court anyway. The pr…

Brown and Obergefell each overruled prior Supreme Court precedent. Brown overruled several decisions, including Plessy (itself one of the most asinine decisions in history).

Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

#109

Post by rufus_foreman »

CalChris wrote: post #26
ars wrote: post #6

This 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.

Congress passed the Clean Water Act which literally included "estuarine zones". The Supreme Court cynically said Congress hadn't meant wetlands with that synonym. So yeah, the Supreme Court or Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch and Barrett are at fault. BTW, the opinion literally quotes the term "estuarine waters" which is a phrase never used in the Clean Water Act. Basically, the majority opinion is lying.

>> the opinion literally quotes the term "estuarine waters" which is a phrase never used in the Clean Water Act

The opinion cites §1330(g)(4)(C)(vii) ("estuarine waters"), looks like that is from an amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (which is the official name for the Clean Water Act), https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/PLAW/114/public/PLAW-114pub...:

"To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the National Estuary Program, and for other purposes"

...

"(vii) low dissolved oxygen conditions in estuarine waters and related nutrient management."

Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

#110

Post by [deleted] »

winter_blue wrote: post #87
nostromo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is false. Congress continues to pass a record number of bills, and often does so with broad bipartisan support. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_117th_Unit... The current situation is not at all special or ahistorical. Every president since the founding has probably felt tempted to become a dictator and work around congress out of frustration -- thankfully we have the court system to (usually) s…

Many of the significant bills in the Wikipedia article are budgetary bills, which are not subject to the Senate filibuster. I suspect the current Congress has not passed any meaningful non-budgetary legislation. Some of the most important pending bills include restoring the Voting Rights Act (which was crippled by the conservative wing of the Supreme Court in the Shelby County v. Holder decision). That bill is still…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN