Sackett v EPA

[n_huffhines]

Over/Under on Supreme Court denying due process in this case?

The EPA will not allow Sackett to build on his own land, claiming it might be a wetland. There is no evidence that it is a wetland. They made this claim based on the fact that the area is listed in the National Wetlands Inventory. The truth is the area is surrounded by wetlands, but the National Wetlands Inventory does not include Sackett's lot as a wetland. The EPA's response: The NWI's information isn't always accurate. Apparently it was accurate enough when the EPA thought it was claiming the property to be a wetland. Every court has sided with the EPA so far.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40iHXAOjJ3U&feature=plcp&context=C4ab86e2VDvjVQa1PpcFMsXKQpaSUcDxN0I42pHVGlkHzOLTpECZA%3D[/youtube]

 

[PKT_VOL]

I can see the argument for either side. It amazes me that the EPA would let such a small undeserving case be brought before the Supreme Court. Makes no sense. Then again, it's government.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I can see the argument for either side. It amazes me that the EPA would let such a small undeserving case be brought before the Supreme Court. Makes no sense. Then again, it's government.

Retroactively declaring the man's land as essentially useless is a big deal. Gives EPA enormous latitude to expand its stupidity without valid argument.

 

[n_huffhines]

They are ordering Sackett to restore the land where he started his foundation (fines of up to $37,500/day). The crazy thing is they want him to artificially introduce non-native plants that weren't there before, which in turn the EPA will/would probably use to bolster their claim that it is a wetland.

 

[MG1968]

between cap and trade, wetlands determination, and the endangered species act, the EPA is the greatest single threat to property rights since the rise of communism

 

[possumslayer]

Yep
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[RespectTradition]

The big problem with the case is the arbitrariness and lack of recourse.

If the EPA would just let them be while it works through the courts, then there would still be problems, but at least a court can hear it and rule. Since they are, in effect, guilty before a trial, and the consequences of failing to win are so high, the EPA puts an average citizen in an untenable position.

Read this if you want more clarification:

http://www.volnation.com/forum/politics/149874-epa-v-constitution.html

 

[PKT_VOL]

Retroactively declaring the man's land as essentially useless is a big deal. Gives EPA enormous latitude to expand its stupidity without valid argument.

I am not defending the EPA in this particular case. But, I do think they have a valid point about the precedent it would set if the Sackett's win.

 

[volinbham]

At a minimum there needs to be an action by the EPA that is actionable by the land owner. The limbo-land situation where the EPA claims they've only given a warning but could take action at anytime but until they do you can't take action against them is BS.

The EPA should rule against the people or leave them alone. This inbetween "warning" stuff is BS.

 

[utvolpj]

I am not defending the EPA in this particular case. But, I do think they have a valid point about the precedent it would set if the Sackett's win.

you mean that they would have to follow the same rules as every one else? Not sure I see the danger

 

[PKT_VOL]

you mean that they would have to follow the same rules as every one else? Not sure I see the danger

There should be a middle ground. There should be some sort of overhaul to the process in which they handle and issue compliance orders (and their challenges). This backs up the Sackett's case.

The point the EPA is making is that this should not be played out in courtrooms across the country. For the sake of the justice system and their own enforcement of the law. It would allow companies or individuals with deep pockets to essentially ignore the EPA by dragging out a lengthy court-case with "experts" on each side.

It just amazes me that the EPA would let such a small fish with a credible challenge, take them all the way to the supreme court. It makes no sense.

 

[RespectTradition]

There should be a middle ground. There should be some sort of overhaul to the process in which they handle and issue compliance orders (and their challenges). This backs up the Sackett's case.

The point the EPA is making is that this should not be played out in courtrooms across the country. For the sake of the justice system and their own enforcement of the law. It would allow companies or individuals with deep pockets to essentially ignore the EPA by dragging out a lengthy court-case with "experts" on each side.

It just amazes me that the EPA would let such a small fish with a credible challenge, take them all the way to the supreme court. It makes no sense.

Arrogance.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Arrogance.

I know. There are no other efficient ways to resolve EPA compliance orders than to tie up our judicial courts the way they are currently structured.

 

[gsvol]

I can see the argument for either side. It amazes me that the EPA would let such a small undeserving case be brought before the Supreme Court. Makes no sense. Then again, it's government.

Odds are the EPA tried to prevent this to go to the Supreme Court all along the way except to back down from their tyranical agenda.

This isn't an isolated incident there are hundreds of thousands of such cases each year.

Kudos to the Sacketts and their perserverence.

May the court rule in favor of the Constitution.

I have a friend whose mother has a lot in Florida, the EPA says she can't build because her lot is protected Florida Scrub Jay habitat.

BS, it wasn't Jay habitat when she bought it and the EPA has no right to confiscate her rights.

My next door neighbor sold his farm over idiotic EPA claims of wetlands crap.

The EPA greatly abuses the endangered species act, the wetlands act, the clean water act and the clean air act to enact controls that as MG says; "the EPA is the greatest single threat to property rights since the rise of communism."

And as a matter of fact it was nazism and not communism that was the one who first usurped property rights in this manner.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Odds are the EPA tried to prevent this to go to the Supreme Court all along the way except to back down from their tyranical agenda.

This isn't an isolated incident there are hundreds of thousands of such cases each year.

Kudos to the Sacketts and their perserverence.

May the court rule in favor of the Constitution.

I have a friend whose mother has a lot in Florida, the EPA says she can't build because her lot is protected Florida Scrub Jay habitat.

BS, it wasn't Jay habitat when she bought it and the EPA has no right to confiscate her rights.

My next door neighbor sold his farm over idiotic EPA claims of wetlands crap.

The EPA greatly abuses the endangered species act, the wetlands act, the clean water act and the clean air act to enact controls that as MG says; "the EPA is the greatest single threat to property rights since the rise of communism."

And as a matter of fact it was nazism and not communism that was the one who first usurped property rights in this manner.

As I stated earlier, I am on the Sackett's side in this dilemma. I am not trying to defend the EPA's current methods or protocol. However, don't let your hatred for the EPA blind you to the unforeseen consequences of flooding our Judicial System with EPA lawsuits over compliance orders. There is a happy median which will protect landowners and businesses while not clogging up our Judicial System and undermining the EPA's ability to enforce the law on people who are actually violating them.

 

[MG1968]

As I stated earlier, I am on the Sackett's side in this dilemma. I am not trying to defend the EPA's current methods or protocol. However, don't let your hatred for the EPA blind you to the unforeseen consequences of flooding our Judicial System with EPA lawsuits over compliance orders. There is a happy median which will protect landowners and businesses while not clogging up our Judicial System and undermining the EPA's ability to enforce the law on people who are actually violating them.

tell that to the farmers in the Klamath River Basin

 

[PKT_VOL]

tell that to the farmers in the Klamath River Basin

You don't think they would be for overhauling the EPA's methods and protocols? Not to mention streaming lining challenges to the those new methods and protocols.

 

[MG1968]

You don't think they would be for overhauling the EPA's methods and protocols? Not to mention streaming lining challenges to the those new methods and protocols.

of course they would be, my point is that the EPA has screwed them royally and their only recourse has been the federal court system

the EPA is not going to change until it is purged of all supporters of Al Gore and the green socialist movement

 

[PKT_VOL]

of course they would be, my point is that the EPA has screwed them royally and their only recourse has been the federal court system

the EPA is not going to change until it is purged of all supporters of Al Gore and the green socialist movement

I agree. I was just pointing out to all those on this board that have great disdain for the EPA (and for good reason) to be careful what you wish for. The unforeseen consequences of misguided but well-intended solutions are often worse than the original problem.

 

[gsvol]

As I stated earlier, I am on the Sackett's side in this dilemma. I am not trying to defend the EPA's current methods or protocol. However, don't let your hatred for the EPA blind you to the unforeseen consequences of flooding our Judicial System with EPA lawsuits over compliance orders. There is a happy median which will protect landowners and businesses while not clogging up our Judicial System and undermining the EPA's ability to enforce the law on people who are actually violating them.

For one thing 99.999% of the people who are run roughshod over by the EPA don't have the money to file lawsuits and certainly not enough money to pursue the case all the way to the Supreme Court.

The EPA runs over the private citizen in unconstitutional ways on a daily basis and those citizens aren't necessarily violating any law.

The congress passes unbrella laws such as the endangered species act, the wetlands act, the clean air act and the clean water act and then the EPA regulates as it sees fit. Those are regulations, not laws.
And many of those regulations are just too idiotic for words.

They tried to tax cow farts but the beef and dairy industries were too big for them to take on and it would have been bad publicity for the treehuggers manning the EPA.

You think the EPA really protects the environment?

About twenty years ago someone set up a drilling machine and a local said, that seems like a bad place to dig a well and the driller said this is for a toxic waste dump.

It was another Love Canal in the making.

This had all been approved by the EPA and they meant to set on a hill and pump toxic waste 300 feet into the ground. Since the hill was about 300 feet higher than the valley floor it didn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that water from the springs and wells of the people living there would soon be undrinkable.

So we formed a group HALT (Hickmans Against Lethal Trash), did some demonstating and got a grudging amount of coverage from the media. The EPA was no help whatsoever, they were going to carry through in their arrogant manner no matter what.

Meanwhile, on one of many many trips to the state capitol to try get the project stopped, which we finally did before any damage was done, we found a chemical company applying for a one year exemption from pumping toxic wastes into the aquifier which is about a thousand feet underground and about forty miles upriver from this area.

Remember the stoppage of the Keystone pipeline is because of fears of polluting the great plains aquifier, which is about as remote as Martians landing since it would take a huge failure that lasted years for oil to seep down into the aquifier.

What we found was that two chemical companies, Monsanto and Stoeffer, had been getting one year exemptions for seventeen straight years.

We finally did get it stopped but that took about ten years since they just kept on without the exemptions.

That isn't the whole story either, and the EPA didn't ever do a damned thing to help out.

 

[PKT_VOL]

For one thing 99.999% of the people who are run roughshod over by the EPA don't have the money to file lawsuits and certainly not enough money to pursue the case all the way to the Supreme Court.

The EPA runs over the private citizen in unconstitutional ways on a daily basis and those citizens aren't necessarily violating any law.

The congress passes unbrella laws such as the endangered species act, the wetlands act, the clean air act and the clean water act and then the EPA regulates as it sees fit. Those are regulations, not laws.
And many of those regulations are just too idiotic for words.

Again, I have said multiple times in this thread, I believe the EPA should be forced to streamline lining their regulations, methods, and protocols. No argument from me about that.

You think the EPA really protects the environment?

No doubt about it. I am living in a third world country. Feel free to come and see the disparity between the two countries. Don't get me wrong, there are other factors that factor into the equation, but having a body like the EPA is certainly a part of the equation.

About twenty years ago someone set up a drilling machine and a local said, that seems like a bad place to dig a well and the driller said this is for a toxic waste dump.

It was another Love Canal in the making.

This had all been approved by the EPA and they meant to set on a hill and pump toxic waste 300 feet into the ground. Since the hill was about 300 feet higher than the valley floor it didn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that water from the springs and wells of the people living there would soon be undrinkable.

So we formed a group HALT (Hickmans Against Lethal Trash), did some demonstating and got a grudging amount of coverage from the media. The EPA was no help whatsoever, they were going to carry through in their arrogant manner no matter what.

Meanwhile, on one of many many trips to the state capitol to try get the project stopped, which we finally did before any damage was done, we found a chemical company applying for a one year exemption from pumping toxic wastes into the aquifier which is about a thousand feet underground and about forty miles upriver from this area.

Remember the stoppage of the Keystone pipeline is because of fears of polluting the great plains aquifier, which is about as remote as Martians landing since it would take a huge failure that lasted years for oil to seep down into the aquifier.

What we found was that two chemical companies, Monsanto and Stoeffer, had been getting one year exemptions for seventeen straight years.

We finally did get it stopped but that took about ten years since they just kept on without the exemptions.

That isn't the whole story either, and the EPA didn't ever do a damned thing to help out.

Sounds like you don't have and EPA problem specifically. More like just one example of the overarching lobbying epidemic which is crippling this country.

 

[volinbham]

Justice served - SCOTUS unanimously sides with Sacketts saying they can bring suit against the EPA.

Supreme Court backs landowners in EPA clean water case - chicagotribune.com

 

[gsvol]

Again, I have said multiple times in this thread, I believe the EPA should be forced to streamline lining their regulations, methods, and protocols. No argument from me about that.

No doubt about it. I am living in a third world country. Feel free to come and see the disparity between the two countries. Don't get me wrong, there are other factors that factor into the equation, but having a body like the EPA is certainly a part of the equation.

Sounds like you don't have and EPA problem specifically. More like just one example of the overarching lobbying epidemic which is crippling this country.

What do you do there, if you are at liberty to say.

Actually I do have a problem with the EPA from the beginning.

I don't think it is the lobbying, although that certainly is a problem because it eventually seems to corrupt even the most well meaning representative, I think the EPA was a devise to help control our economy from it's conception on.



Ham beat me to it.

THE FREEDOM POST: OBAMA'S TYRANNICAL EPA GOONS GET SHOT DOWN BY SUPREME COURT IN IDAHO COUPLE'S 'WETLANDS' CASE

An Idaho couple, whose lives have been ruined the last several years by the tyrannical EPA, won a crucial "David and Goliath" case in the Supreme Court today, humiliating the overzealous out-of-control bureaucracy in a unanimous 9-0 decision. If you're not familiar with the case, the EPA egregiously violated Mike and Chantell Sackett's property rights by arbitrarily and without cause, declaring their property as "wetlands", threatening them with oppressive fines of $75,000 per day if they did not restore it to its original state. The EPA unconstitutionally acted as "judge and jury", violating the couple's right to due process by informing them that they had no right to appeal the EPA's heavy-handed decree.

Actually I'm surprised Kagan and Sotomayor didn't vote for the EPA.

 

[PKT_VOL]

What do you do there, if you are at liberty to say.

Actually I do have a problem with the EPA from the beginning.

Teach English for money and volunteer at a hospital in my spare time. Taking a year off from school to learn and immerse myself in another culture (get away from the "American Bubble") and travel the world a little bit.

I don't think it is the lobbying, although that certainly is a problem because it eventually seems to corrupt even the most well meaning representative, I think the EPA was a devise to help control our economy from it's conception on.

I agree with the first part of your statement, disagree with the second part.

 

[gsvol]

Teach English for money and volunteer at a hospital in my spare time. Taking a year off from school to learn and immerse myself in another culture (get away from the "American Bubble") and travel the world a little bit.



I agree with the first part of your statement, disagree with the second part.

Given enough information, I think you would also agree with the second part.

GOOD MORNING VIETNAM!

Are you fluent in Vietnamese?

I have a friend who is fluent in Chinese who taught English in Taiwan for a while.

He is also an accomplished musitian.

Funny story, he and some of his friends were contracted to play the soundtrack for an animated movie.

He thought it was going to be some sort low budget thing and took his sleeping bag with him.

They put him up in a four star hotel!

It's sometimes like another guy I know who wrote a movie script about Jimmy Rogers 'the father of country music' and he knew first hand what he was talkiing about and everyone in the music business from Johnny Cash on down wanted to do a cameo in the film if it was ever made. They even had a Model-T PU truck like Jimmy came to Nashville in, (before leaving in a Packard after making a buck or two.)

He sent the script to Hollywood, thinking he could make the movie on his own for about $500,000 but asking for funding of $5,000,000, he recieved the reply; "we don't consider projects for less that $50,000,000 in production costs."

My advise was that he should say his secretary had made a typo and he had fired her dumbass, amend the proposal to reflect a $50,000,000 project cost.

He should have taken my advise.

What sort of volunteer work do you do in the hospital?