Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it's not automated. But we must all remember that as software engineers we are not trained in the law and so, before we argue for US wetlands to receive federal protection, we should first let the experts, who have experience, training, and credentials decide. Land use is a complex and nuanced subject and before you argue for one way or the other, perhaps you should listen to the experts. Remember, people can d…
Ya but it doesn't seem particularly useful or insightful when you are commenting this on every single post that comes up every single time. Like seriously you've been doing this for weeks.
Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
141–149 of 149 posts
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was most certainly not unanimity on the redefinition of wetlands, which is what they were talking about.
> While the nine justices agreed that the Sacketts should prevail, they divided 5-to-4 as to how far to go in limiting the EPA's authority. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/25/1178150234/supreme-court-epa-...
> Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by the court's three liberal members, disputed Alito's reading of the statute, noting that since 1977 when the CWA was amended to include adjacent wetlands, eight consecutive presidential administrations, Republican and Democratic, have interpreted the law to cover wetlands that the court has now excluded. Kavanaugh said that by narrowing the act to cover only adjoining wetlands, the court's new test will have quote "significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States."
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#143I'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
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well then they should have written the law better.
Law was written well, Supreme Court has drastically overstepped its bounds to make policy by fiat. Sounds like you agree with this, but think about when the pendulum swings back and the freedoms you enjoy are now infringed upon by unelected, unaccountable justices that don’t GAF about the will of the the people.
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m curious then if you also oppose Brown and Obergefell?
This seems to be a sort of "gotcha" question, wherein you pose points of precedent breaking for which I am likely to support the outcome but not the process. And you are right. I absolutely support both same-sex marriage and the casting out of the vile separate-but-equal doctrine. And I think both would have been better done as legislation. When the supreme court struck down 50 years of precedent supporting the right…
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m curious then if you also oppose Brown and Obergefell?
This seems to be a sort of "gotcha" question, wherein you pose points of precedent breaking for which I am likely to support the outcome but not the process. And you are right. I absolutely support both same-sex marriage and the casting out of the vile separate-but-equal doctrine. And I think both would have been better done as legislation. When the supreme court struck down 50 years of precedent supporting the right…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
> In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he's the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.
You don't get democracy for participating in a voting ritual. You don't get justice for just following precedent. These things are a summation of the beliefs, norms, and actions of a society as a whole.
It is myopic to frame the conversation around precedence or individual cases. When you frame the conversation around justice, it becomes clear why it's OK to break precedence to protect rights granted by nature, but not OK to break precedence to enrich some business that pollutes the environment.
Here is one of our great founding father's (Thomas Paine) take on justice:
> Man, with respect to all those matters, is more a creature of consistency than he is aware, or than governments would wish him to believe. All the great laws of society are laws of nature. Those of trade and commerce, whether with respect to the intercourse of individuals or of nations, are laws of mutual and reciprocal interest. They are followed and obeyed, because it is the interest of the parties so to do, and not on account of any formal laws their governments may impose or interpose.
> But how often is the natural propensity to society disturbed or destroyed by the operations of government! When the latter, instead of being ingrafted on the principles of the former, assumes to exist for itself, and acts by partialities of favour and oppression, it becomes the cause of the mischiefs it ought to prevent.
Our government was acting on behalf of the citizens with brown and obergafell and is acting on behalf of corrupt individuals with citizens united, this, the overturns, or any other number of things our federalist society junta is doing.
So when the court operates on behalf of the weak and oppressed it is fulfilling it's purpose, but when it operates on behalf of the powerful and corrupt, it is denigrating the institution it claims to be and spitting in the very face of justice and crushing the idea of rule of law.
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#147Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
US law does not function like this. Federal agencies are authorized to operate under authorizing law passed through Congress. A president can only direct an agency to allocate resources to do something under existing law (Executive Orders are not new law, they are instructing an agency to enforce or not enforce existing law). Agencies are given some latitude in how to create Rules that function under the authorizing…
Presidential decree 100% functions like this, and has been used for things like this well before Trump brought it into the lime light.
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#149Earlier 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.
> The court voted unanimously to reverse the Ninth Circuit, but split 5–4 on the rationale. The majority opinion, by Alito, introduced a new test to define wetlands, which reversed five decades of EPA rule-making and limited the scope of the Clean Water Act's authority to regulate waters of the United States. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the three liberal justices in agreeing that the CWA did not apply to the Sacketts' property, but argued that the majority's new definition was incorrect and will have significant effects on regulated waters.