Justice Alito: "The position taken in this case by the Federal Government—a
position that the Court now squarely rejects—would have put the property
rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental
Protection Agency(EPA) employees."

You can now have a wading pool in your backyard without worrying over a
$75,000/day fine.

http://volokh.com/2012/03/21/unanimo...sackett-v-epa/

On 3/21/2012 2:01 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Justice Alito: "The position taken in this case by the Federal Government—a
position that the Court now squarely rejects—would have put the property
rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental
Protection Agency(EPA) employees."

You can now have a wading pool in your backyard without worrying over a
$75,000/day fine.

http://volokh.com/2012/03/21/unanimo...sackett-v-epa/

The SC ruled that property owners have the right to contest the EPA's
ruling that their property falls under the Clean Water Act. They now
get to have their day in court. That's all this ruling gave them.

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Justice Alito: "The position taken in this case by the Federal
Government—a position that the Court now squarely rejects—would have
put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of
Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) employees."

You can now have a wading pool in your backyard without worrying over
a $75,000/day fine.





And when your kid pees in the pool it no longer automatically qualifies as
a Superfund site?


--
Tegger

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:11:41 -0500, Hell Toupee
wrote:

On 3/21/2012 2:01 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Justice Alito: "The position taken in this case by the Federal Government—a
position that the Court now squarely rejects—would have put the property
rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental
Protection Agency(EPA) employees."

You can now have a wading pool in your backyard without worrying over a
$75,000/day fine.

http://volokh.com/2012/03/21/unanimo...sackett-v-epa/

The SC ruled that property owners have the right to contest the EPA's
ruling that their property falls under the Clean Water Act. They now
get to have their day in court. That's all this ruling gave them.

Right. Now people are no longer at the mercy of the EPA. They can
challenge in court; instead of having the EPA have the final word.

That probably initiates the superfund designation.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Tegger" wrote in message
...

And when your kid pees in the pool it no longer automatically qualifies as
a Superfund site?


--
Tegger

On Mar 21, 1:11*pm, Hell Toupee wrote:
On 3/21/2012 2:01 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Justice Alito: "The position taken in this case by the Federal Government—a
position that the Court now squarely rejects—would have put the property
rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental
Protection Agency(EPA) employees."

You can now have a wading pool in your backyard without worrying over a
$75,000/day fine.

http://volokh.com/2012/03/21/unanimo...les-in-favor-o...

The SC ruled that property owners have the right to contest the EPA's
ruling that their property falls under the Clean Water Act. They now
get to have their day in court. That's all this ruling gave them.

And a biggee it is. That case has gone on for a couiple years now at
least. It is almost in my back yard (only 50miles away). the back
story is couple buys vacant land, Starts to build house, Fills in a
low spot and flit hits the shan. EPA says it it wet lands. Owners
say it isn't but then have no right to haul EPA to court and make them
prove it is wet lands, EPAs word is thethe thaw and that ends
everything.

From day one, all the owners wanted was a day in court to make their
case.

I'm surprised it had to go to the Supremes before that decision was
made.

By the time it got there, the fines had built to astonomical levels.

Harry K

Harry K wrote:
On Mar 21, 1:11 pm, Hell Toupee wrote:
On 3/21/2012 2:01 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Justice Alito: "The position taken in this case by the Federal
Government—a position that the Court now squarely rejects—would
have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the
mercy of Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) employees."

You can now have a wading pool in your backyard without worrying
over a $75,000/day fine.

http://volokh.com/2012/03/21/unanimo...les-in-favor-o...

The SC ruled that property owners have the right to contest the EPA's
ruling that their property falls under the Clean Water Act. They now
get to have their day in court. That's all this ruling gave them.

And a biggee it is. That case has gone on for a couiple years now at
least. It is almost in my back yard (only 50miles away). the back
story is couple buys vacant land, Starts to build house, Fills in a
low spot and flit hits the shan. EPA says it it wet lands. Owners
say it isn't but then have no right to haul EPA to court and make them
prove it is wet lands, EPAs word is thethe thaw and that ends
everything.

From day one, all the owners wanted was a day in court to make their
case.

I'm surprised it had to go to the Supremes before that decision was
made.

By the time it got there, the fines had built to astonomical levels.


In the majority opinion, Justice Scalia commented "Wet lands? The plaintiffs
in this case testified that they never once saw a boat or vessel cross their
property."

On Mar 22, 5:48*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote:
On Mar 21, 1:11 pm, Hell Toupee wrote:
On 3/21/2012 2:01 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Justice Alito: "The position taken in this case by the Federal
Government—a position that the Court now squarely rejects—would
have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the
mercy of Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) employees."

You can now have a wading pool in your backyard without worrying
over a $75,000/day fine.

http://volokh.com/2012/03/21/unanimo...les-in-favor-o....

The SC ruled that property owners have the right to contest the EPA's
ruling that their property falls under the Clean Water Act. They now
get to have their day in court. That's all this ruling gave them.

And a biggee it is. *That case has gone on for a couiple years now at
least. *It is almost in my back yard (only 50miles away). *the back
story is couple buys vacant land, Starts to build house, Fills in a
low spot and flit hits the shan. *EPA says it it wet lands. *Owners
say it isn't but then have no right to haul EPA to court and make them
prove it is wet lands, EPAs word is thethe thaw and that ends
everything.

From day one, all the owners wanted was a day in court to make their
case.

I'm surprised it had to go to the Supremes before that decision was
made.

By the time it got there, the fines had built to astonomical levels.

In the majority opinion, Justice Scalia commented "Wet lands? The plaintiffs
in this case testified that they never once saw a boat or vessel cross their
property."

The whole point of the case is that EPA claims it is wet-lands, owner
says it isn't and under the current (or what was current) there was no
way to force the EPA to justify there claim.

Basically it was:

"we say it is wet, stop building and remove the fill".

anybody recognize jackbooted thugs in that? I suspect that the owners
will lose but at least now they'll get their day in court.

Harry K

On Mar 22, 5:48*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote:
On Mar 21, 1:11 pm, Hell Toupee wrote:
On 3/21/2012 2:01 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Justice Alito: "The position taken in this case by the Federal
Government—a position that the Court now squarely rejects—would
have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the
mercy of Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) employees."

You can now have a wading pool in your backyard without worrying
over a $75,000/day fine.

http://volokh.com/2012/03/21/unanimo...les-in-favor-o....

The SC ruled that property owners have the right to contest the EPA's
ruling that their property falls under the Clean Water Act. They now
get to have their day in court. That's all this ruling gave them.

And a biggee it is. *That case has gone on for a couiple years now at
least. *It is almost in my back yard (only 50miles away). *the back
story is couple buys vacant land, Starts to build house, Fills in a
low spot and flit hits the shan. *EPA says it it wet lands. *Owners
say it isn't but then have no right to haul EPA to court and make them
prove it is wet lands, EPAs word is thethe thaw and that ends
everything.

From day one, all the owners wanted was a day in court to make their
case.

I'm surprised it had to go to the Supremes before that decision was
made.

By the time it got there, the fines had built to astonomical levels.

In the majority opinion, Justice Scalia commented "Wet lands? The plaintiffs
in this case testified that they never once saw a boat or vessel cross their
property."

Back when the EPA first sstarted, they would rule 'wetland' if htere
was a puddle of water on it at any time of year. My a a neighbor got
our tit in the wringer over a grove of Willow trees we removed.
WETLANDS they screamed. Reality? A spring on one end of the 10 acre
plot with the rest being a spring time drain from feild run-offm read
stream running
through that was dry 10 all summer/fall. We lost.

Harry K

"HeyBub" wrote:

-snip-

In the majority opinion, Justice Scalia commented "Wet lands? The plaintiffs
in this case testified that they never once saw a boat or vessel cross their
property."


Did you hear that on the radio? Here's the opinion.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf

I didn't read it, but there is no mention of a boat, which is good
because for a second there I thought Scalia had lost it.

Jim

"Tegger" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Justice Alito: "The position taken in this case by the Federal
Government-a position that the Court now squarely rejects-would have
put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of
Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) employees."

You can now have a wading pool in your backyard without worrying over
a $75,000/day fine.


And when your kid pees in the pool it no longer automatically qualifies as
a Superfund site?

I once dated a pediatric surgeon who could assure you that some kids can
excrete liquids and solids that might qualify as biologic weaponry!

--
Bobby G.

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

-snip-

In the majority opinion, Justice Scalia commented "Wet lands? The
plaintiffs in this case testified that they never once saw a boat or
vessel cross their property."


Did you hear that on the radio? Here's the opinion.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf

I didn't read it, but there is no mention of a boat, which is good
because for a second there I thought Scalia had lost it.


Woe! My bad.

The statement was not part of the decision; Scalia's statement was part of
the oral arguments:

"Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking in the courtroom, mocked the EPA's view
that the Sacketts' small lot was protected by federal law as part of the
'navigable waters' of the United States. The couple, 'never having seen a
ship or other vessel cross their yard,' questioned that their lot was a
wetland, Scalia said, and they are entitled to a civil hearing before the
agency to contest the EPA's jurisdiction over their property. "

http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/print...rintComments=1

I apologize for the mistake and for sending you on a wild chicken chase.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


I once dated a pediatric surgeon who could assure you that some kids can
excrete liquids and solids that might qualify as biologic weaponry!


I'd have to agree. I have seen what appears to be weaponized baby
poop.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:12 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:


I once dated a pediatric surgeon who could assure you that some kids can
excrete liquids and solids that might qualify as biologic weaponry!


I'd have to agree. I have seen what appears to be weaponized baby
poop.

Mustard gas?

Oren wrote in
:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:12 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:


I once dated a pediatric surgeon who could assure you that some kids
can excrete liquids and solids that might qualify as biologic
weaponry!


I'd have to agree. I have seen what appears to be weaponized baby
poop.

Mustard gas?




I heard that French babies fart Dijon mustard gas.

Or is it Grey Poupon?


--
Tegger

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
.. .
That probably initiates the superfund designation.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lsd.org

It takes more than a kid whizzing to be declared a toxic waste site. The EPA
Superfund is the classic case of why free market advocates are so full of
BS. Who's going to pay for the cleanup of sites on this list, especially
when the polluter has gone bankrupt? A consortium of businesses? HELL NO.
It's Joe Taxpayer. There's absolutely no incentive for corporations to do
things for the public good in the alleged "free market" paradise some of its
adherents foolishly believe we should live under. Here, educate yourself:

http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env-r...rank-sites.tcl

That's a LOT of poison. I'm not sure why ultra right-wingers hate the EPA.
Maybe they love toxic waste. Some of them sure spout a hell of a lot of
toxic waste disguised as public policy statements.

What's really unusual is that the EPA was created by a Republican, Richard
Nixon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...tection_Agency

The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on
December 2, 1970, after Nixon submitted a reorganization plan to Congress
and it was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate. The
agency is led by its Administrator, who is appointed by the president and
approved by Congress.

Makes it seem that the right is strongly opposed to their own actions.
How's that for muddled minds? "We created it to hate it." (-:

FWIW, the decision is hardly a big win. It's just an indication that
Congress wrote another badly worded law. What a surprise!

The Court bases its decision on statutory grounds, ruling that the
property owners are entitled to judicial review of their case under the
Administrative Procedure Act. It therefore did not reach the issue of
whether such review is also required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment, which states that the government may not deprive individuals of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The scope of the
decision is therefore limited.

Essentially the Court ruled that property owners can now hemorrhage legal
fees fighting the EPA at a time of their choosing, not the EPA's. Suing the
government can be an extremely expensive procedure, and can result in all
sorts of collateral trouble from the IRS and other Federal agencies. The
important point is that the case was decided on statutes, which can be
easily rewritten, rather than on Constitutional grounds. That's very
important because a Constitutional basis for the ruling would be far more
resistant to legal wrangling.

--
Bobby G.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:12 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


I once dated a pediatric surgeon who could assure you that some kids can
excrete liquids and solids that might qualify as biologic weaponry!


I'd have to agree. I have seen what appears to be weaponized baby
poop.

There's a reason they call it "projectile"...

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:34:34 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote:

Oren wrote in
:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:12 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:


I once dated a pediatric surgeon who could assure you that some kids
can excrete liquids and solids that might qualify as biologic
weaponry!


I'd have to agree. I have seen what appears to be weaponized baby
poop.

Mustard gas?




I heard that French babies fart Dijon mustard gas.

Or is it Grey Poupon?

ROTFLOL. ;-)

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:11:41 -0500, Hell Toupee

The SC ruled that property owners have the right to contest the EPA's
ruling that their property falls under the Clean Water Act. They now
get to have their day in court. That's all this ruling gave them.

Right. Now people are no longer at the mercy of the EPA. They can
challenge in court; instead of having the EPA have the final word.

If you've ever been involved in a lawsuit with a Federal agency, you might
reconsider the words "no longer at the mercy." Maybe "not completely SOL,
but still pretty close" applies. The EPA has a virtually endless legal and
investigatory staff. They can, in legal parlance, "turn on the taps" so
that the legal fees a litigant faces might in many cases outweigh the cost
of the property in question. They can paper a citizen to death with motions
and look into all the deep, dark corners of their lives. SCOTUS just closed
a loophole, and not very tightly. A private citizen facing the array of
resources the Feds can bring to bear in various legal actions is still in a
very, very shi++ty place.

--
Bobby G.

Oren wrote in
:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:12 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:


I once dated a pediatric surgeon who could assure you that some kids
can excrete liquids and solids that might qualify as biologic
weaponry!


I'd have to agree. I have seen what appears to be weaponized baby
poop.

Mustard gas?

Don't knock mustard gas. It started chemotherapy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...r_chemotherapy

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Italian: Poopaeroni
German: Pooperschnitzel
English: Tea and poopets
Iraq: Muslim suicide pooper

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Tegger" wrote in message
...

I once dated a pediatric surgeon who could assure you that some kids
can excrete liquids and solids that might qualify as biologic
weaponry!


I'd have to agree. I have seen what appears to be weaponized baby
poop.

Mustard gas?




I heard that French babies fart Dijon mustard gas.

Or is it Grey Poupon?


--
Tegger

On 3/22/2012 4:13 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:12 -0400, Kurt
wrote:


I once dated a pediatric surgeon who could assure you that some kids can
excrete liquids and solids that might qualify as biologic weaponry!


I'd have to agree. I have seen what appears to be weaponized baby
poop.

Mustard gas?

I once heard a movie line "What?!! You never feed a baby barbeque!!" ^_^

TDD

On 3/22/2012 6:50 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:21:12 -0400, Kurt
wrote:


I once dated a pediatric surgeon who could assure you that some kids
can excrete liquids and solids that might qualify as biologic
weaponry!


I'd have to agree. I have seen what appears to be weaponized baby
poop.

Mustard gas?

Don't knock mustard gas. It started chemotherapy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...r_chemotherapy


Let me guess, an observant physician noticed that mustard gas victims
were cancer free? ^_^

TDD

On Mar 22, 4:34*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

...

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:11:41 -0500, Hell Toupee
The SC ruled that property owners have the right to contest the EPA's
ruling that their property falls under the Clean Water Act. They now
get to have their day in court. That's all this ruling gave them.

Right. Now people are no longer at the mercy of the EPA. They can
challenge in court; instead of having the EPA have the final word.

If you've ever been involved in a lawsuit with a Federal agency, you might
reconsider the words "no longer at the mercy." *Maybe "not completely SOL,
but still pretty close" applies. *The EPA has a virtually endless legal and
investigatory staff. *They can, in legal parlance, "turn on the taps" so
that the legal fees a litigant faces might in many cases outweigh the cost
of the property in question. *They can paper a citizen to death with motions
and look into all the deep, dark corners of their lives. *SCOTUS just closed
a loophole, and not very tightly. *A private citizen facing the array of
resources the Feds can bring to bear in various legal actions is still in a
very, very shi++ty place.

--
Bobby G.

But at least now they _can_ have their day in court, before it was "I
sadd it ws wet" that ends it.

Harry K

The Daring Dufas wrote in news:jkghfd$kqu$2
@dont-email.me:

On 3/22/2012 6:50 PM, Han wrote:
snip
Don't knock mustard gas. It started chemotherapy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...r_chemotherapy


Let me guess, an observant physician noticed that mustard gas victims
were cancer free? ^_^

At the link:
The beginnings of the modern era of cancer chemotherapy can be traced
directly to the discovery of nitrogen mustard, a chemical warfare agent,
as an effective treatment for cancer. Two pharmacologists, Louis S.
Goodman and Alfred Gilman, were recruited by the United States Department
of Defense to investigate potential therapeutic applications of chemical
warfare agents. A year into the start of their research a German air raid
in Bari, Italy led to the exposure of more than one thousand people to
the SS John Harvey's secret cargo composed of mustard gas bombs. Dr.
Stewart Francis Alexander, a Lieutenant Colonel who was an expert in
chemical warfare, was subsequently deployed to investigate the aftermath.
Autopsies of the victims suggested that profound lymphoid and myeloid
suppression had occurred after exposure. In his report Dr. Alexander
theorized that since mustard gas all but ceased the division of certain
types of Somatic cells whose nature it was to divide fast, it could also
potentially be put to use in helping to suppress the division of certain
types of cancerous cells.[1]


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Mar 23, 9:05*am, Han wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote in news:jkghfd$kqu$2
@dont-email.me:



On 3/22/2012 6:50 PM, Han wrote:
snip
Don't knock mustard gas. *It started chemotherapy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...r_chemotherapy

Let me guess, an observant physician noticed that mustard gas victims
were cancer free? ^_^

At the link:
The beginnings of the modern era of cancer chemotherapy can be traced
directly to the discovery of nitrogen mustard, a chemical warfare agent,
as an effective treatment for cancer. Two pharmacologists, Louis S.
Goodman and Alfred Gilman, were recruited by the United States Department
of Defense to investigate potential therapeutic applications of chemical
warfare agents. A year into the start of their research a German air raid
in Bari, Italy led to the exposure of more than one thousand people to
the SS John Harvey's secret cargo composed of mustard gas bombs. Dr.
Stewart Francis Alexander, a Lieutenant Colonel who was an expert in
chemical warfare, was subsequently deployed to investigate the aftermath.
Autopsies of the victims suggested that profound lymphoid and myeloid
suppression had occurred after exposure. In his report Dr. Alexander
theorized that since mustard gas all but ceased the division of certain
types of Somatic cells whose nature it was to divide fast, it could also
potentially be put to use in helping to suppress the division of certain
types of cancerous cells.[1]

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

So, maybe Sadam was really trying to find a cure for cancer?

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


I once dated a pediatric surgeon who could assure you that some kids can
excrete liquids and solids that might qualify as biologic weaponry!


I'd have to agree. I have seen what appears to be weaponized baby
poop.

A well baby can generate some awful smells, but a *sick* baby can clear a
large amphitheater. My former GF believed that's a protective adaptation
for a group. Individuals are likely to stay away from a sick member of the
tribe that's emitted a green fog stink that makes your eyes water.
Considering how lethal dysentery can be and how fast diseases can spread in
clusters of young children, it sounds plausible to me. Also consider how
much more sensitive primitive noses were. If you think *we* think it smells
bad, they must have been nearly stunned. Of course, dogs seem to revel in
the putrid and they have great noses. Who knows?

--
Bobby G.

"Han" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Don't knock mustard gas. It started chemotherapy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...r_chemotherapy

Antidepressants first started out as a cure for TB. They didn't cure TB but
researchers began to notice that the patients didn't seem to care about
their TB as much after they had taken the drug for a few weeks. And so one
of the most widely prescribed classes of drugs in the world was born. I
just read an item about a study implying that taking a sleep aid like
Lunesta can seriously affect your lifespan.

http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2012/...o-early-death/

Researchers analyzing the electronic health records of more than 30,000
patients have found that those taking popular sleeping pills such as
temazepam (Restoril), zolpidem (Ambien), eszopiclone (Lunesta) and zaleplon
(Sonata) were significantly more likely to die during the two and a half
years of follow-up.
The records of 10,529 patients who got sleeping pill prescriptions between
2002 and 2007 were matched to those of 23,676 people who got no sleeping
pills. The matches took into account gender, age (average was 54 years old),
obesity, smoking, health problems diagnosed other than insomnia, ethnicity,
alcohol use and marital status. The results were shocking: those taking
sleeping pills were about four times (3.6 to 5.6) more likely to die during
the follow-up.

Maybe it will turn out that insomnia increases longevity.

--

Bobby G.

"Harry K" wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 4:34 pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

...

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:11:41 -0500, Hell Toupee
The SC ruled that property owners have the right to contest the EPA's
ruling that their property falls under the Clean Water Act. They now
get to have their day in court. That's all this ruling gave them.

Right. Now people are no longer at the mercy of the EPA. They can
challenge in court; instead of having the EPA have the final word.

If you've ever been involved in a lawsuit with a Federal agency, you might
reconsider the words "no longer at the mercy." Maybe "not completely SOL,
but still pretty close" applies. The EPA has a virtually endless legal and
investigatory staff. They can, in legal parlance, "turn on the taps" so
that the legal fees a litigant faces might in many cases outweigh the cost
of the property in question. They can paper a citizen to death with
motions
and look into all the deep, dark corners of their lives. SCOTUS just
closed
a loophole, and not very tightly. A private citizen facing the array of
resources the Feds can bring to bear in various legal actions is still in
a
very, very shi++ty place.

--
Bobby G.

But at least now they _can_ have their day in court, before it was "I
sadd it ws wet" that ends it.

Agreed. But the case was merely a correction to a badly written law (hence
the unanimity - they have no qualms about bashing Congress - they are
slightly more reluctant to overrule their predecessors). Some people were
hoping for a much more powerful ruling, as in the Feds have no inherent
right to protect wetlands or whatever they *decide* is a wetland on a
Constitutional basis.

With the hideously crowded court dockets the recession has created, I really
don't see much change. The horrendous fines reporters are writing about
almost always accrue on paper only. Judges routinely stop the fine clock
from the day a suit is filed unless the ligitant does something to really
**** them off. From what I've read, the long times to trial are a strategy
aimed at encouraging abatement before litigation.

Anyone familiar with disaster caused by hog waste pens (they call them
lagoons) being overrun in North Carolina's hurricane Floyd knows that the
EPA, as pesky as it might seem, actually does good work. At the very least
they serve as an "institutional memory" for disasters like the NC hog lagoon
releases. Agricultural stormwater discharges and irrigation return flows
were specifically exempted from permit requirements of the Clean Water Act
and now those sorts of discharges represent some of the worst and costliest
water pollution events in the nation. That was rather a predictable
outcome.

Pigs generate an enormous amount of manure that sits around in lagoons,
stinking to high heaven but eventually decomposing. North Carolina faced
enormous water cleanup costs after Floyd from all the pig crap that got into
the drinking water when the lagoons overflowed with storm water. Walled
enclosures and even better lagoon siting rules could have and should have
prevented that disaster. But the EPA can't regulate those sorts of
situations, to the best of my knowledge, although they're moving in that
direction now that it's clear how much a cleanup of such a disaster costs.
Now that states are going broke they don't want to get stuck with costs of
such cleanups when the proper solution resides with the hog farmers.

--
Bobby G.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:34:34 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:11:41 -0500, Hell Toupee

The SC ruled that property owners have the right to contest the EPA's
ruling that their property falls under the Clean Water Act. They now
get to have their day in court. That's all this ruling gave them.

Right. Now people are no longer at the mercy of the EPA. They can
challenge in court; instead of having the EPA have the final word.

If you've ever been involved in a lawsuit with a Federal agency, you might
reconsider the words "no longer at the mercy." Maybe "not completely SOL,
but still pretty close" applies. The EPA has a virtually endless legal and
investigatory staff. They can, in legal parlance, "turn on the taps" so
that the legal fees a litigant faces might in many cases outweigh the cost
of the property in question. They can paper a citizen to death with motions
and look into all the deep, dark corners of their lives. SCOTUS just closed
a loophole, and not very tightly. A private citizen facing the array of
resources the Feds can bring to bear in various legal actions is still in a
very, very shi++ty place.

I stand by the "mercy" comment.

You are singing to the choir, barking up a tree. I know how the feds
operate. I been yelled at, spanked on the hand, called on the carpet
for a refresher course, given marching orders, read the riot act, but
they never had the balls to kill me and eat me.

Bobby, I have boxes of legal papers. Some times you get the bear,
sometimes the bear gets you. I've taken on feds ensuring my rights.
One day I was asked (by the top boss) "what is that?" "That's a tape
recorder!" Don't lie to me... Spent years with regular back ground
checks. I've refused entry into my home by Asst. U.S. Inspector
Generals. See me in the office, when I get back to work.

Even been accused of brutality by a Nigerian Prince. Once a
co-defendant with near one hundred co-workers. Still in contempt of
court in one court, from '83. The feds teach labor law about me :-\

Point:

Now the winner can contest the EPA for a sunny day in court.

Does the EPA have some administrative remedy, instead of some bean
counter having final word. Otherwise this should not have gotten into
court?

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:22:21 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

But at least now they _can_ have their day in court, before it was "I
sadd it ws wet" that ends it.

Harry K

Yes Sir.

This ruling applies to us all, best I can think (thinking gets me in
trouble).

" wrote in news:cbc7999e-
:

So, maybe Sadam was really trying to find a cure for cancer?

Ask the Kurds or the Iranians how they benefitted ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Robert Green" wrote in news:jki9ka$dkt$2
@dont-email.me:

Maybe it will turn out that insomnia increases longevity.
It sure makes time stand still, so maybe not objective longevity, but
certainly subjective lifetime.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Mar 23, 12:18*pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:34:34 -0400, "Robert Green"





wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:11:41 -0500, Hell Toupee

The SC ruled that property owners have the right to contest the EPA's
ruling that their property falls under the Clean Water Act. They now
get to have their day in court. That's all this ruling gave them.

Right. Now people are no longer at the mercy of the EPA. They can
challenge in court; instead of having the EPA have the final word.

If you've ever been involved in a lawsuit with a Federal agency, you might
reconsider the words "no longer at the mercy." *Maybe "not completely SOL,
but still pretty close" applies. *The EPA has a virtually endless legal and
investigatory staff. *They can, in legal parlance, "turn on the taps" so
that the legal fees a litigant faces might in many cases outweigh the cost
of the property in question. *They can paper a citizen to death with motions
and look into all the deep, dark corners of their lives. *SCOTUS just closed
a loophole, and not very tightly. *A private citizen facing the array of
resources the Feds can bring to bear in various legal actions is still in a
very, very shi++ty place.

I stand by the "mercy" comment.

You are singing to the choir, barking up a tree. *I know how the feds
operate. *I been yelled at, spanked on the hand, called on the carpet
for a refresher course, given marching orders, read the riot act, but
they never had the balls to kill me and eat me.

Bobby, I have boxes of legal papers. Some times you get the bear,
sometimes the bear gets you. I've taken on feds ensuring my rights.
One day I was asked (by the top boss) "what is that?" *"That's a tape
recorder!" *Don't lie to me... Spent years with regular back ground
checks. I've refused entry into my home by Asst. U.S. Inspector
Generals. *See me in the office, when I get back to work.

Even been accused *of brutality by a Nigerian Prince. Once a
co-defendant with near one hundred co-workers. Still in contempt of
court in one court, from '83. The feds teach labor law about me :-\

Point:

Now the winner can contest the EPA for a sunny day in court.

Does the EPA have some administrative remedy, instead of some bean
counter having final word. Otherwise this should not have gotten into
court?

they don't seem to have had one (and for sure don't now - not
needed). That case drug on fr several years until it got to the
Supremes who pointed out clearly that becasue a beurocrat says
something, that ain't good enough.

Harry K

"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in news:cbc7999e-


So, maybe Sadam was really trying to find a cure for cancer?

Ask the Kurds or the Iranians how they benefitted ...

If Saddam hadn't used CBW in the past, I doubt the WMD question could have
risen up as far as it did and we might never have gone to war with them.
His past use of CBW made the threat more "vibrant."

There might have been an overall *eventual* benefit for the Kurds. Depends
on how they perceive their current state of affairs. As for the Iranians -
they probably just died without much overall future benefit.

Ever cloud has a silver lining, every tornado contains a lot of loose
change.

--
Bobby G.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:34:34 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:11:41 -0500, Hell Toupee

The SC ruled that property owners have the right to contest the EPA's
ruling that their property falls under the Clean Water Act. They now
get to have their day in court. That's all this ruling gave them.

Right. Now people are no longer at the mercy of the EPA. They can
challenge in court; instead of having the EPA have the final word.

If you've ever been involved in a lawsuit with a Federal agency, you
might
reconsider the words "no longer at the mercy." Maybe "not completely
SOL,
but still pretty close" applies. The EPA has a virtually endless legal
and
investigatory staff. They can, in legal parlance, "turn on the taps" so
that the legal fees a litigant faces might in many cases outweigh the
cost
of the property in question. They can paper a citizen to death with
motions
and look into all the deep, dark corners of their lives. SCOTUS just
closed
a loophole, and not very tightly. A private citizen facing the array of
resources the Feds can bring to bear in various legal actions is still in
a
very, very shi++ty place.

I stand by the "mercy" comment.

As I understand it, the EPA didn't really have the final word before, but
they could delay a court confrontation for quite some time. I think of it
this way. Before, citizens had no right to a speedy trial and now they do.
That's still no guarantee of a FAIR trial. What's absent from this decision
and what many people sought was a much clearer definition of what a
"wetland" really is. That would have been a lot more helpful to litigant
like Harry K in the final analysis than getting a speedy trial or hearing.

An old lawyer friend had a saying I took very much to heart. "If you have
to go to court over an issue, you've already lost and only the lawyers win."
A very clear definition of what constitutes wetlands would have been a far
greater victory. I think that real victory will come eventually. It's in
the nature of bureaucracy to keep trying to increase their power and the
scope of things they regulate. That's a process that needs constant
countering to keep in check.

You are singing to the choir, barking up a tree. I know how the feds
operate. I been yelled at, spanked on the hand, called on the carpet
for a refresher course, given marching orders, read the riot act, but
they never had the balls to kill me and eat me.

Yet. (-: I'm betting you're in somebody's cookbook. "To Serve Oren" for
you TZ fans.

Bobby, I have boxes of legal papers. Some times you get the bear,
sometimes the bear gets you. I've taken on feds ensuring my rights.

I have no doubt of that. You're no shrinking violet.

One day I was asked (by the top boss) "what is that?" "That's a tape
recorder!" Don't lie to me... Spent years with regular back ground
checks. I've refused entry into my home by Asst. U.S. Inspector
Generals. See me in the office, when I get back to work.

BTDT, which is why I believe that even though disputes can now be forced
into court, it's not going to change the outcomes much. You just get into
the sausage grinder sooner than later. Ironically one of the things that
colors my thinking on this is Head Start. Looks like a great idea, should
be a great idea, but when you look at the metrics and final outcomes,
nothing really changed for the kids. I believe it was the Evil Kurt who
forced me to reassess my ideas about HS. (-: I fear that nothing will
change much for the people accused of polluting wetlands by the EPA. Maybe
a few cases will swing a different way but the the fix is still in.

Judges, as part of the government, tend to defer to government experts,
perhaps far more than they should. Unless you get a judge who's an
ecologist or hydrologist, he's likely to side with the EPA on the issue of
"what are wetlands?" Heybub's quote of Scalia's oral arguments "I didn't
see any ships" gets to the heart of the matter. The EPA still has great
latitude in declaring what lands are "wet" and that's going to determine the
outcome of any litigation, reached speedily or not.

Even been accused of brutality by a Nigerian Prince.

Who, you? What happened? Aren't all Nigerians princes or oil heirs,
looking to share their wealth with anyone who can cash a $20M check?
Nigeria's two greatest exports are oil and fraud scams. Or was it the old
joke: "How many prison guards does it take to push a Nigerian prisoner down
a staircase? NONE! He fell!"

Once a co-defendant with near one hundred co-workers. Still in contempt
of
court in one court, from '83. The feds teach labor law about me :-\

Are you saying that you are contemptuous? (-: Who would have guessed?

Point:

Now the winner can contest the EPA for a sunny day in court.

To me, that translates into: "Congratulations, now you can get to a "fixed"
outcome sooner than later. The real issue that got mostly got ducked
(groan) is "what are wetlands" and does the government have the basic right
to protect them by taking your property or limiting its "enjoyment?" That's
what needs to be determined and probably will mapped out through case law,
and not statute. That's like playing connect the dots and is a slow,
arduous process that will have very different outcomes depending on the
Circuit where the case is heard. Count on more cases to bubble up the the
Supremes as more cases reach lower courts on a now expedited basis. The
French have a saying about how it's probably better to drive slowly to your
own execution. Sadly, I think all that this case did was to provide some
people with a faster ride to the same bad outcome.

Does the EPA have some administrative remedy, instead of some bean
counter having final word. Otherwise this should not have gotten into
court?

I don't know. But I believe in sunset laws and the need for every
government organization to justify their existence every couple of decades
or so. There's way too much "fire and forget" in government where it's easy
to get laws passed (good and bad) but very hard to rescind any of them. The
Feds have way too many agencies like the FAA that have cross-purposes. To
ensure airline safety, for example, but to promote air travel as well.
Well, if you report on how badly maintenance is being performed by some
airlines, you're gonna spook air travelers - hence the problem. Which
master do you serve?

The SEC is facing the same sort of issues, obtaining settlements without any
admission of criminal liability by any individual actors. They're being
forced to change their tune and MO by judges who don't want to sign off on
"Nobody did nuttin' wrong, here's a check for 1/20 the damage we really did,
have a nice day" settlements.

In any event, I agree with the analysts that say this could have and should
have been a much stronger victory that included precise statutory
definitions of wetlands that draw limits around the power of EPA. Leaving
it up to a panoply of federal judges across the nation still seems to be a
pretty big crap shoot for someone under the EPA's magnifying glass. I'd
rather see a concrete list of what makes up a wetland. Are there nesting
waterfowl? Does the land drain directly into some estuary or drinking water
source? Things that people can understand without hiring experts to make
semi-educated guesses based on previous enforcement actions and not
clear-cut definitions that a property owner or purchaser can understand.

--
Bobby G.

"Harry K" wrote in...
On Mar 23, 12:18 pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:34:34 -0400, "Robert Green"

stuff snipped

Now the winner can contest the EPA for a sunny day in court.

Does the EPA have some administrative remedy, instead of some bean
counter having final word. Otherwise this should not have gotten into
court?

they don't seem to have had one (and for sure don't now - not
needed). That case drug on fr several years until it got to the
Supremes who pointed out clearly that becasue a beurocrat says
something, that ain't good enough.

Harry, I admire the fact that you believe people will get a better outcome
from a judicial trial. However, my sister's a judge and I can assure you,
she can do bureaucracy like nobody's business. The problem is often
expressed as "they wouldn't arrest him if he wasn't guilty." Judges often
side with the government that also signs their paychecks. It's a pretty
common human failing.

The changes required to the EPA's "reach" have to come at the statutory
level. At forty plus years of age, the EPA is about due for a top-to-bottom
effectiveness review. I don't favor eliminating them because they have made
tremendous strides in cleaning our air and water. I think we're both old
enough to remember rivers catching fire from industrial pollution. That
said, I do favor making sure they haven't overflowed their banks and gotten
into areas they shouldn't be in.

--
Bobby G.

On Mar 23, 2:25*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in...
On Mar 23, 12:18 pm, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:34:34 -0400, "Robert Green"

stuff snipped

Now the winner can contest the EPA for a sunny day in court.

Does the EPA have some administrative remedy, instead of some bean
counter having final word. Otherwise this should not have gotten into
court?

they don't seem to have had one (and for sure don't now - not
needed). *That case drug on fr several years until it got to the
Supremes who pointed out clearly that becasue a beurocrat says
something, that ain't good enough.

Harry, I admire the fact that you believe people will get a better outcome
from a judicial trial. *However, my sister's a judge and I can assure you,
she can do bureaucracy like nobody's business. The problem is often
expressed as "they wouldn't arrest him if he wasn't guilty." *Judges often
side with the government that also signs their paychecks. *It's a pretty
common human failing.

The changes required to the EPA's "reach" have to come at the statutory
level. *At forty plus years of age, the EPA is about due for a top-to-bottom
effectiveness review. *I don't favor eliminating them because they have made
tremendous strides in cleaning our air and water. *I think we're both old
enough to remember rivers catching fire from industrial pollution. *That
said, I do favor making sure they haven't overflowed their banks and gotten
into areas they shouldn't be in.

--
Bobby G.

You must have missed my post where I said my bet is that they will
(the plaintiffs) will loose eventually.

Harry K

"Harry K" wrote in message
...
On Mar 23, 2:25 pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in...
On Mar 23, 12:18 pm, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:34:34 -0400, "Robert Green"

stuff snipped

Now the winner can contest the EPA for a sunny day in court.

Does the EPA have some administrative remedy, instead of some bean
counter having final word. Otherwise this should not have gotten into
court?

they don't seem to have had one (and for sure don't now - not
needed). That case drug on fr several years until it got to the
Supremes who pointed out clearly that becasue a beurocrat says
something, that ain't good enough.

Harry, I admire the fact that you believe people will get a better outcome
from a judicial trial. However, my sister's a judge and I can assure you,
she can do bureaucracy like nobody's business. The problem is often
expressed as "they wouldn't arrest him if he wasn't guilty." Judges often
side with the government that also signs their paychecks. It's a pretty
common human failing.

The changes required to the EPA's "reach" have to come at the statutory
level. At forty plus years of age, the EPA is about due for a
top-to-bottom
effectiveness review. I don't favor eliminating them because they have
made
tremendous strides in cleaning our air and water. I think we're both old
enough to remember rivers catching fire from industrial pollution. That
said, I do favor making sure they haven't overflowed their banks and
gotten
into areas they shouldn't be in.

--
Bobby G.

You must have missed my post where I said my bet is that they will (the
plaintiffs) will loose eventually.

Yep, I missed it. Sorry. I guess we agree it's not as big a leap as it
should be. I'm not even sure the EPA should have any authority over private
citizens and their homesteads. Most massive pollution is caused by
corporate entities.

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:

Harry, I admire the fact that you believe people will get a better
outcome from a judicial trial. However, my sister's a judge and I
can assure you, she can do bureaucracy like nobody's business. The
problem is often expressed as "they wouldn't arrest him if he wasn't
guilty." Judges often side with the government that also signs their
paychecks. It's a pretty common human failing.


As an aside, Alan Dershowitz posited the following rules:

1. Virtually every criminal defendant is guilty.
2. Rule #1 is known to the judge, the district attorney, and defense
counsel.
3. Few criminal defendants can be convicted without violating one or more of
their Constitutional rights.
4. Rule #3 is known to the judge, the district attorney, and defense
counsel.
5. Defendants are often convicted, not for what they did, but for what can
be proved. Much of the time what they did cannot be proved and what was
proved was not what they did.
6. Rule #5 is known to the judge, the district attorney, and defense
counsel.

Studying the above rules will demonstrate why almost everyone in prison
feels they are there on a bum rap.