A Huge SCOTUS Ruling Today

[Ozarks Tom]

I'm thinking even though the SCOTUS mentions "Stare Decicis" some well funded groups will challenge some of the more egregious decisions based on Chevron. If and when one breaks through thousands of others will follow.

Stare Decisis is a self-defense mechanism used by SCOTUS to preclude such a backlog of cases, but some regulations are so absurd as to just beg for a re-look. For instance, a rancher in Montana was fined to the point of bankruptcy and lost his land from fines for filling in a low area the EPA had declared a protected "swampland" under the Navigable Waters Act. Letting that ruling stand is in exact opposition to this Chevron decision. There's no interpretation of the Navigable Waters Act that could possibly include an isolate swamp.

It's not just those egregious past decisions that might be re-litigated, but the very fact that Congress can no longer write vague laws with names that sound wonderful, but are wide open for abuse by minor tyrants with agendas is a tremendous change in how government will work from now on.

[joebill]

Someplace recently I heard "Navigable waters" defined as a body of water through which one could float an 18" diameter log of 18 feet in length.

As seems to happen more and more these days I got no clue where I heard it.. ....Joe

[farmrbrown]

Jun 30, 2024 2:14:45 GMT joebill said:

Someplace recently I heard "Navigable waters" defined as a body of water through which one could float an 18" diameter log of 18 feet in length.

As seems to happen more and more these days I got no clue where I heard it.. ....Joe

It may indeed have come from a ruling on that somewhere.

www.nap.usace.army.mil/Portals/39/docs/regulatory/regs/33cfr329.pdf

Section 329.6 - Interstate or foreign commerce
a. Nature of commerce: type, means, and extent of use. The types of commercial use of a waterway are extremely varied and will depend on the character of the region, its products, and the difficulties or dangers of navigation. It is the waterbody's capability of use by the public for purposes of transportation of commerce which is the determinative factor, and not the time, extent or manner of that use. As discussed in Section 329.9 of this Part, it is sufficient to establish the potential for commercial use at any past, present, or future time. Thus, sufficient commerce may be shown by historical use of canoes, bateaux, or other frontier craft, as long as that type of boat was common or well-suited to the place and period. Similarly, the particular items of commerce may vary widely, depending again on the region and period. The goods involved might be grain, furs, or other commerce of the time. Logs are a common example; transportation of logs has been a substantial and well-recognized commercial use of many navigable waters of the United States. Note, however, that the mere presence of floating logs will not of itself make the river "navigable"; the logs must have been related to a commercial venture. Similarly, the presence of recreational craft may indicate that a waterbody is capable of bearing some forms of commerce, either presently, in the future, or at a past point in time.
b. Nature of commerce: interstate and intrastate. Interstate commerce may of course be existent on an intrastate voyage which occurs only between places within the same state. It is only necessary that goods may be brought from, or eventually be destined to go to, another state. (For purposes of this regulation, the term "interstate commerce" hereinafter includes "foreign commerce" as well.)

[joebill]

Of course, government has and will continue to change the status of waterways regarding navigability on a whim through it's constant tampering and meddling. NOW the question will be if they are doing it to improve commerce or simply to gain legal control.

Apparently, agriculture is not considered commerce for these purposes, since watering crops is not dependent upon navigation, so you may lose your rice paddy or cranberry bog if somebody hauled a canoe load of furs down your water source in the year 1846.

Prob'ly should not even mention what the corps of engineers has done to the wide strip of wetlands formerly provided by the mighty Mississippi.....Joe

[Ozarks Tom]

Common sense would call for a definition of "wadeable" waters. Those waters that during the majority of a year a person could walk through with semi-ease. Also, a definition of "isolated" waters, those waters not connected to a flowing body of water.

To an extent, I can understand environmental concern for "wetlands" that provide nurture to migrant waterfowl, but we already have millions of acres set aside specifically for that purpose under government ownership. For instance huge swaths of waterfowl preserves are in South Texas in the rice growing belt near the coast. When the geese and ducks come of their night roosts at daybreak the sky turns black miles from their protected zones.

[joebill]

I should have been more clear. I was not complaining about the Mississippi over wetlands destruction because of environmental reasons, but over the fact that the river has been straightened and restrained a LOT since the civil war and all of those efforts serve to dump more and more of what would have been groundwater right into the sea at the end of it's journey.

NOW the rice farmers and such in the lower Mississippi basin seem to be getting short on groundwater, for some strange reason. No doubt that also has to do with them acting like all of the water in the world is right under their feet, but in true fashion government has made choices between one industry and another that flushes, in my opinion, far too much groundwater down the drain.

Of course, if I ruled the world everybody would get exactly what they needed ....Joe

[BrewDaddy]

Does this mean that the Dept. of Education and EPA won't be able to keep their SWAT teams?



bd

[Ozarks Tom]

Jun 30, 2024 16:34:18 GMT BrewDaddy said:

Does this mean that the Dept. of Education and EPA won't be able to keep their SWAT teams?



bd

Now, I can understand the IRS needing a SWAT team.  After all, Hunter Biden failed to pay taxes on several millions of income, and had a gun.

[joebill]

Regarding the Mississippi river, in recent years whenever floods occur on the river, masses of people have taken to standing on the bridges across the river in St. Louis, MO. Each is clinging to his or her toothbrush. Why do you suppose that is?....

Why, waiting for the Crest, of course ....Joe

[solargeek]

Latest on the future:
“The Supreme Court remanded nine cases to lower courts last week in light of its reversal of the landmark precedent known as the Chevron deference.
This batch of cases may be the first indication of the legal upheaval that could play out across the judiciary in the U.S. now that one of the most widely cited Supreme Court decisions has been overturned.
Several conservative anti-regulation groups have been preparing for the post-Chevron world by planning legal challenges and lobbying efforts, according to a new report.”

www.cnbc.com/2024/07/10/supreme-court-post-chevron-legal-chaos.html

[joebill]

"And just three days later, conservatives praised the court again when it ruled in the case of Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The court’s 6-3 decision in Corner Post significantly expanded the rights of individuals to sue regulators, another blow to federal agencies.

Together, these rulings convey a clear message from the Supreme Court, Coglianese said: “The doors to the courthouse are open to hear complaints about agency power.”

VERY NICE! ....Joe

[Ozarks Tom]

Jul 10, 2024 18:58:41 GMT joebill said:

"And just three days later, conservatives praised the court again when it ruled in the case of Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The court’s 6-3 decision in Corner Post significantly expanded the rights of individuals to sue regulators, another blow to federal agencies.

Together, these rulings convey a clear message from the Supreme Court, Coglianese said: “The doors to the courthouse are open to hear complaints about agency power.”

VERY NICE! ....Joe

I'm absolutely loving it!! (and I'm not even one of those lawyers who are going to get rich taking those regulations apart one at a time)