4 ms·
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 f
by ksherlock 3y ago
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.
- cmh89 3y agoYou 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?
- paulddraper 3y agoSo what percentage of SCOTUS "legitimate"
- cipheredStones 3y agoThis is very misleading - the regulatory changes introduced by the ruling were 5-4 along ideological lines, even though the judgement in favor of the Sacketts was unanimous. In the case this year: > 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.