3 ms·

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 congre

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 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44585

LastTrain 3y ago
Well then they should have written the law better.
- MarkMarine 3y ago
  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.
  - LastTrain 3y ago
    I don't agree with the outcome of the ruling.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> 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.
- mullingitover 3y ago
  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.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Statutes are frequently written in vague terms with the intent of having the executive branch make a reasonable interpretation Page 6 of the Opinion [1] does a good job summarizing what Congress wrote, what it meant at the time, how it was amended by the courts and agencies over the years, and how it's changed since 2015. Nothing appears to be corruptly constructed. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > Wetlands were broadly undefined in statute. Probably not because “oops we forgot”, but “we want regulators to handle the specifics”.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    As in wetlands aren’t in the original statute. The term is “waters of the United States.”
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      What makes a wetland wet, again? The Act includes all sorts of wording, like "it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water", "eliminating the pollution of the navigable waters and ground waters and improving the sanity condition of surface and underground waters", and "within all or part of a watershed or river basin". That's quite a wide net to cast.
barney54 3y ago
Here, Congress said they were regulating the “navigable waters.” If they wanted to regulate wetlands, they should have said so in the text of the law. Congress didn’t say they wanted to regulate wetlands in the text of the law.
- MarkMarine 3y ago
  They didn’t say navigatable waters, that was in the original wording and it was specifically changed to protect wetlands. That is what they were discussing at the time
jandrese 3y ago
Honestly the mistake of the original law was to limit it only to "navigable" waters, because the land does not have two different water systems. Most water ends up in a navigable body at some point. If someone is dumping mine tailings in a river but is told to stop so they switch to dumping them in the creek that feeds the river then nothing has been solved.

LastTrain 3y ago

Well then they should have written the law better.

MarkMarine 3y ago
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.
- LastTrain 3y ago
  I don't agree with the outcome of the ruling.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> 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.

mullingitover 3y ago
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.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Statutes are frequently written in vague terms with the intent of having the executive branch make a reasonable interpretation Page 6 of the Opinion [1] does a good job summarizing what Congress wrote, what it meant at the time, how it was amended by the courts and agencies over the years, and how it's changed since 2015. Nothing appears to be corruptly constructed. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
ceejayoz 3y ago
> Wetlands were broadly undefined in statute. Probably not because “oops we forgot”, but “we want regulators to handle the specifics”.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  As in wetlands aren’t in the original statute. The term is “waters of the United States.”
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    What makes a wetland wet, again? The Act includes all sorts of wording, like "it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water", "eliminating the pollution of the navigable waters and ground waters and improving the sanity condition of surface and underground waters", and "within all or part of a watershed or river basin". That's quite a wide net to cast.

barney54 3y ago

Here, Congress said they were regulating the “navigable waters.” If they wanted to regulate wetlands, they should have said so in the text of the law. Congress didn’t say they wanted to regulate wetlands in the text of the law.

MarkMarine 3y ago
They didn’t say navigatable waters, that was in the original wording and it was specifically changed to protect wetlands. That is what they were discussing at the time

jandrese 3y ago

Honestly the mistake of the original law was to limit it only to "navigable" waters, because the land does not have two different water systems. Most water ends up in a navigable body at some point. If someone is dumping mine tailings in a river but is told to stop so they switch to dumping them in the creek that feeds the river then nothing has been solved.