4 ms·

Increasing rollbacks of various right and protections - labor, environmental, consumer - seem to be happening lately. We'll see where this ends up. As for this

Increasing rollbacks of various right and protections - labor, environmental, consumer - seem to be happening lately. We'll see where this ends up. As for this decision in particular, it's pretty short-sighted to think that a "surface connection" is substantially different than a connected aquifer when it comes to many pollutants. I wonder if the justices consulted with anyone who knows what they're talking about in this regard or this was a gut call on their part.

malfist 3y ago
Knowing the court makeup, they consulted with corporations, not experts.
- Ancapistani 3y ago
  Note that the decision specific to this case was unanimous. There was a 5-4 split on whether to go further and require "wetlands" to be connected to another body of water to qualify. That wasn't a partisan split, either: Kavanaugh dissented.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Conservatives regularly "dissent" when it doesn't affect the outcome. See our wonderful Susan Collins
    - Ancapistani 3y ago
      True - but it applies to both parties.
      - mrguyorama 3y ago
        Do you have examples?
        Ancapistani 3y ago
        I don't recall the exact bills off the top of my head, but I know Lisa Murkowski has voted against bills with the GOP when they're in the minority after having vocally supported those same bills prior. I do remember that it was a gun control bill and that she likely did it to protect her NRA rating, which was an "A" at the time. She was later downgraded to a "B" last year after voting to end a GOP filibuster that was blocking its passage through the Senate. Sorry I don't remember anything more specific at the moment :(. FWIW, I don't think it's an uncommon practice.
        tstrimple 3y ago
        So your counter example of a Republican voting another way when it doesn't impact the results is another Republican voting another way when it doesn't impact the results? If you're going to pretend "both sides are the same" you should come up with examples other than Republicans.
    - poo-yie 3y ago
      I didn't realize Susan Collins was a Supreme Court justice!
- edgyquant 3y ago
  There is no expert who should be deciding land policy and the idea of letting “experts” dictate the lives and property of millions is tyrannical (by the very definition.)
leotravis10 3y ago
This is just the beginning of all US federal agencies being gutted down to the core I hate to say it. Probably within the next year. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/01/supreme-court-chevron-doctrine-climate-change-00094670 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/01/supreme-court-chevr... Going forward, the battles of regulation will go down to state and local levels. You can see it in broadband as an good example, where the FCC has become increasingly corrupt, feckless and powerless, and all the real battles are now state by state, block by block.
- Ancapistani 3y ago
  > This is just the beginning of all US federal agencies being gutted down to the core I hate to say it. I agree, but am pleased to see it. From a personal perspective, every hobby or interest I have exposes some other federal agency that's hostile toward it, and hated by that community for going well beyond their statutory authority. Speaking more generally... I think severely curtailing the non-statutory authority of federal agencies is just about the only path toward keeping our federal system in the long run. Most of this country (by area, not population) is increasingly resentful of the federal government's actions, and their ability to enforce the law is decaying over time. I think we'll see the Chevron Doctrine significantly limited, if not completely overturned. There are several firearms cases working their way through the courts now that would be well-suited for that. If it's done via another case, those will likely be remanded and reversed by the appellate to avoid setting more precedent specific to firearms.
  - sundaeofshock 3y ago
    > Most of this country (by area, not population) is increasingly resentful of the federal government's actions, Land doesn’t vote.
    - brg 3y ago
      In the US, the Senate represents land ownership well.
    - Retric 3y ago
apercu 3y ago
Seems that the justices these days just take money from vested interests and rule accordingly.
- HonestOp001 3y ago
  That is incorrect. If you read through their arguments, you will see a long list of documents to pull from. When you see made up concepts and things that make no sense, then you may say that. I am looking at you 9th district. The issue at play is how the government is seen by the people in charge, it is an exciting time to see those in charge try to bend the rules to get the judges to accept it. Look at how Obama claimed the care act was not a tax until it went to the court and then it became a tax to slip by.
- remarkEon 3y ago
  I never quite understand this argument when I see it. Is the idea that Thomas is actually a liberal and if he didn’t have wealthy conservative friends he would write and vote differently on these cases?
  - kevviiinn 3y ago
    Liberals are still capitalists
- poo-yie 3y ago
  Even for a 9-0 ruling? I honestly don't know, but historically there's usually at least 1 dissent for something that's controversial.
  - rufus_foreman 3y ago
    The concurring opinion by Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Gorsuch) was in reality a dissent. It argues that "waters of the US", even if it leaves off the word "navigable" in the law, still refers to only navigable waters since the term "waters of the US" has always been used in only that way. That would narrow the scope of the Clean Water Act even further. From the "concurrence": "the agencies have 'asserted jurisdiction over virtually any parcel of land containing a channel or conduit through which rainwater or drainage may occasionally or intermittently flow,' including 'storm drains, roadside ditches, ripples of sand in the desert that may contain water once a year, and lands that are covered by floodwaters once every 100 years.'...The agencies’ definition 'engulf[s] entire cities and immense arid wastelands' alike...Indeed, because 'the entire land area of the United States lies in some drainage basin, and an endless network of visible channels furrows the entire surface,' 'any plot of land containing such a channel may potentially be regulated.'... If this interpretation were correct, the only prudent move for any landowner in America would be to ask the Federal Government for permission before undertaking any kind of development." Then, getting to the real meat of the not-really-a-concurrence "concurrence": "What happened to the CWA is indicative of deeper problems with the Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence. The eclipse of Congress’ well-defined authority over the channels of interstate commerce tracks the Court’s expansion of Congress’ power '[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.'...As I have explained at length, the Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence has significantly departed from the original meaning of the Constitution" That's what Justice Thomas is going for. To kill the New Deal expansion of federal power through the commerce clause. That's why to progressives, he is public enemy number one. He got one other justice to go along for the ride on this one.
raymondh 3y ago
> Increasing rollbacks of various right and protections - labor, environmental, consumer - seem to be happening lately. I take issue with the "rights and protections" phrasing being used in the exact opposite sense of what they mean in this case. The underlying issue is that the vague wording in the CWA was has come to be interpreted expansively and that the consequences of even unintentional violations can be crushing. Here, ordinary people were about to build a house not obviously in "navigable waters", and they were threatened with $40,000 per day in sanctions. Also, calling it a "rollback" is deceptive phrasing that it implies going back to the time before the CWA was enacted. It would be more accurate to note that the law has been interpreted more and more broadly every year since its creation and that some outer limit is being set on what constitutes a "waterway" or "pollutant" (neither are being interpreted in a way that most people would expect). I get that some HackerNews commenters can easily fall into the environment-good/conservatives-bad mentality, but this case can also be viewed as falling into the same category as Aaron Swartz being crushed by an expansive and overly punitive interpretation of the CFAA. Relevant excerpts: > Within a few years, the agencies had “interpreted their jurisdiction over ‘the waters of the United States’ to cover 270-to-300 million acres” of wetlands and “virtually any parcel of land containing a channel or conduit . . . through which rainwater or drainage may occasionally or intermittently flow. > By the EPA’s own admission, nearly all waters and wetlands are potentially susceptible to regulation under this test, putting a staggering array of landowners at risk of criminal prosecution for such mundane activities as moving dirt. > The CWA is a potent weapon. It imposes what have been described as “crushing” consequences “even for inadvertent violations.” Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 578 U. S. 590, 602 (2016) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Property owners who negligently discharge “pollutants” into covered waters may face severe criminal penalties including imprisonment. > The Act prohibits “the discharge of any pollutant” into “navigable waters.” 33 U. S. C. §§1311(a), 1362(12)(A). It broadly defines the term “‘pollutant’” to include not only contaminants like “chemical wastes,” but also more mundane materials like “rock, sand,” and “cellar dirt.” > And due to the Act’s 5-year statute of limitations, 28 U. S. C. §2462, and expansive interpretations of the term “violation,” these civil pen- alties can be nearly as crushing as their criminal counter- parts, see, e.g., Borden Ranch Partnership v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 261 F. 3d 810, 813, 818 (CA9 2001) (upholding Agency decision to count each of 348 passes of a plow by a farmer through “jurisdictional” soil on his farm as a separate violation) When vague laws with powerful punishments are interpreted expansively and aggressively by enforcement agencies, we should all hope that the Supreme Court should set limits.
fzeroracer 3y ago
I mean, this was ultimately an issue of real estate regulations and protections. Harlan Crow is one of the largest real estate developers and is a billionaire. He has a direct connection to Clarence Thomas and has given him multiple 'gifts'. Seems like an obvious person to consult with on laws relating to land regulation.

malfist 3y ago

Knowing the court makeup, they consulted with corporations, not experts.

Ancapistani 3y ago
Note that the decision specific to this case was unanimous. There was a 5-4 split on whether to go further and require "wetlands" to be connected to another body of water to qualify. That wasn't a partisan split, either: Kavanaugh dissented.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Conservatives regularly "dissent" when it doesn't affect the outcome. See our wonderful Susan Collins
  - Ancapistani 3y ago
    True - but it applies to both parties.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      Do you have examples?
      - Ancapistani 3y ago
        I don't recall the exact bills off the top of my head, but I know Lisa Murkowski has voted against bills with the GOP when they're in the minority after having vocally supported those same bills prior. I do remember that it was a gun control bill and that she likely did it to protect her NRA rating, which was an "A" at the time. She was later downgraded to a "B" last year after voting to end a GOP filibuster that was blocking its passage through the Senate. Sorry I don't remember anything more specific at the moment :(. FWIW, I don't think it's an uncommon practice.
        tstrimple 3y ago
        So your counter example of a Republican voting another way when it doesn't impact the results is another Republican voting another way when it doesn't impact the results? If you're going to pretend "both sides are the same" you should come up with examples other than Republicans.
  - poo-yie 3y ago
    I didn't realize Susan Collins was a Supreme Court justice!
edgyquant 3y ago
There is no expert who should be deciding land policy and the idea of letting “experts” dictate the lives and property of millions is tyrannical (by the very definition.)

leotravis10 3y ago

This is just the beginning of all US federal agencies being gutted down to the core I hate to say it. Probably within the next year. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/01/supreme-court-chevron-doctrine-climate-change-00094670 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/01/supreme-court-chevr... Going forward, the battles of regulation will go down to state and local levels. You can see it in broadband as an good example, where the FCC has become increasingly corrupt, feckless and powerless, and all the real battles are now state by state, block by block.

Ancapistani 3y ago
> This is just the beginning of all US federal agencies being gutted down to the core I hate to say it. I agree, but am pleased to see it. From a personal perspective, every hobby or interest I have exposes some other federal agency that's hostile toward it, and hated by that community for going well beyond their statutory authority. Speaking more generally... I think severely curtailing the non-statutory authority of federal agencies is just about the only path toward keeping our federal system in the long run. Most of this country (by area, not population) is increasingly resentful of the federal government's actions, and their ability to enforce the law is decaying over time. I think we'll see the Chevron Doctrine significantly limited, if not completely overturned. There are several firearms cases working their way through the courts now that would be well-suited for that. If it's done via another case, those will likely be remanded and reversed by the appellate to avoid setting more precedent specific to firearms.
- sundaeofshock 3y ago
  > Most of this country (by area, not population) is increasingly resentful of the federal government's actions, Land doesn’t vote.
  - brg 3y ago
    In the US, the Senate represents land ownership well.
  - Retric 3y ago

apercu 3y ago

Seems that the justices these days just take money from vested interests and rule accordingly.

HonestOp001 3y ago
That is incorrect. If you read through their arguments, you will see a long list of documents to pull from. When you see made up concepts and things that make no sense, then you may say that. I am looking at you 9th district. The issue at play is how the government is seen by the people in charge, it is an exciting time to see those in charge try to bend the rules to get the judges to accept it. Look at how Obama claimed the care act was not a tax until it went to the court and then it became a tax to slip by.
remarkEon 3y ago
I never quite understand this argument when I see it. Is the idea that Thomas is actually a liberal and if he didn’t have wealthy conservative friends he would write and vote differently on these cases?
- kevviiinn 3y ago
  Liberals are still capitalists
poo-yie 3y ago
Even for a 9-0 ruling? I honestly don't know, but historically there's usually at least 1 dissent for something that's controversial.
- rufus_foreman 3y ago
  The concurring opinion by Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Gorsuch) was in reality a dissent. It argues that "waters of the US", even if it leaves off the word "navigable" in the law, still refers to only navigable waters since the term "waters of the US" has always been used in only that way. That would narrow the scope of the Clean Water Act even further. From the "concurrence": "the agencies have 'asserted jurisdiction over virtually any parcel of land containing a channel or conduit through which rainwater or drainage may occasionally or intermittently flow,' including 'storm drains, roadside ditches, ripples of sand in the desert that may contain water once a year, and lands that are covered by floodwaters once every 100 years.'...The agencies’ definition 'engulf[s] entire cities and immense arid wastelands' alike...Indeed, because 'the entire land area of the United States lies in some drainage basin, and an endless network of visible channels furrows the entire surface,' 'any plot of land containing such a channel may potentially be regulated.'... If this interpretation were correct, the only prudent move for any landowner in America would be to ask the Federal Government for permission before undertaking any kind of development." Then, getting to the real meat of the not-really-a-concurrence "concurrence": "What happened to the CWA is indicative of deeper problems with the Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence. The eclipse of Congress’ well-defined authority over the channels of interstate commerce tracks the Court’s expansion of Congress’ power '[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.'...As I have explained at length, the Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence has significantly departed from the original meaning of the Constitution" That's what Justice Thomas is going for. To kill the New Deal expansion of federal power through the commerce clause. That's why to progressives, he is public enemy number one. He got one other justice to go along for the ride on this one.

raymondh 3y ago

> Increasing rollbacks of various right and protections - labor, environmental, consumer - seem to be happening lately. I take issue with the "rights and protections" phrasing being used in the exact opposite sense of what they mean in this case. The underlying issue is that the vague wording in the CWA was has come to be interpreted expansively and that the consequences of even unintentional violations can be crushing. Here, ordinary people were about to build a house not obviously in "navigable waters", and they were threatened with $40,000 per day in sanctions. Also, calling it a "rollback" is deceptive phrasing that it implies going back to the time before the CWA was enacted. It would be more accurate to note that the law has been interpreted more and more broadly every year since its creation and that some outer limit is being set on what constitutes a "waterway" or "pollutant" (neither are being interpreted in a way that most people would expect). I get that some HackerNews commenters can easily fall into the environment-good/conservatives-bad mentality, but this case can also be viewed as falling into the same category as Aaron Swartz being crushed by an expansive and overly punitive interpretation of the CFAA. Relevant excerpts: > Within a few years, the agencies had “interpreted their jurisdiction over ‘the waters of the United States’ to cover 270-to-300 million acres” of wetlands and “virtually any parcel of land containing a channel or conduit . . . through which rainwater or drainage may occasionally or intermittently flow. > By the EPA’s own admission, nearly all waters and wetlands are potentially susceptible to regulation under this test, putting a staggering array of landowners at risk of criminal prosecution for such mundane activities as moving dirt. > The CWA is a potent weapon. It imposes what have been described as “crushing” consequences “even for inadvertent violations.” Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 578 U. S. 590, 602 (2016) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Property owners who negligently discharge “pollutants” into covered waters may face severe criminal penalties including imprisonment. > The Act prohibits “the discharge of any pollutant” into “navigable waters.” 33 U. S. C. §§1311(a), 1362(12)(A). It broadly defines the term “‘pollutant’” to include not only contaminants like “chemical wastes,” but also more mundane materials like “rock, sand,” and “cellar dirt.” > And due to the Act’s 5-year statute of limitations, 28 U. S. C. §2462, and expansive interpretations of the term “violation,” these civil pen- alties can be nearly as crushing as their criminal counter- parts, see, e.g., Borden Ranch Partnership v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 261 F. 3d 810, 813, 818 (CA9 2001) (upholding Agency decision to count each of 348 passes of a plow by a farmer through “jurisdictional” soil on his farm as a separate violation) When vague laws with powerful punishments are interpreted expansively and aggressively by enforcement agencies, we should all hope that the Supreme Court should set limits.

fzeroracer 3y ago

I mean, this was ultimately an issue of real estate regulations and protections. Harlan Crow is one of the largest real estate developers and is a billionaire. He has a direct connection to Clarence Thomas and has given him multiple 'gifts'. Seems like an obvious person to consult with on laws relating to land regulation.