I Don’t Know What I Am Talking About

I admit I don’t know what I am talking about when I talk about Supreme Court Decisions because I am not a lawyer and lawyers always know what they are talking about...Or do they?

Below are the first 3 paragraphs of an article about a recent Supreme Court Ruling. While you are reading them see if you can find the 18 Words that caught my attention. I will give my own not-lawyer-like-opinion about what you have read after you have finished your reading...

Supreme Court Reins in EPA Overreach

Thanks to Sackett v. EPA, the feds can no longer treat a backyard puddle like it's a lake.

RONALD BAILEY | 5.25.2023

The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5–4 decision reined in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) effort to impose extensive federal land use regulation through its broad interpretation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The decision in the case of Sackett v. EPA turns on the question of the proper definition of the term "the waters of the United States" (WOTUS). Interestingly, all the justices concurred in the judgment that plaintiffs Michael and Chantell Sackett's property and actions were not covered by the CWA.

In the case, the Sacketts had purchased property near Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot with dirt to prepare for building a home. The EPA claimed that the property contained wetlands over which the agency exercised authority under the Clean Water Act which prohibits discharging pollutants into "the waters of the United States." The EPA threatened to impose a fine of $40,000 per day if the Sacketts did not desist.

The majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito noted that EPA bureaucrats had "classified the wetlands on the Sacketts' lot as 'waters of the United States' because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake." The EPA's ruling against the Sacketts was upheld in federal district court and the 9th Circuit Appeals Court.

************

Did you figure out which 18 Words caught my attention? Of course you did...Or did you?

They were the last 18 words, “The EPA's ruling against the Sacketts was upheld in federal district court and the 9th Circuit Appeals Court.”

How could 2 Lower Courts have ruled against the defendants by looking at a puddle and saying it was essentially part of a lake?

************

It reminds me of the time my daughter and I were trying to watch a late night movie that was constantly being interrupted by Weather Reports about the “bad weather” moving through our area that night.

After many interruptions that tried to make us fear for our lives, the weatherman said something like this (single quotes because it is not an exact quote), ‘You should understand that we are not warning you about tornados or other such really serious weather. This is heavy rain but it is resulting in Significant Puddleing on some of our roadways.’

It was at this point that we gave up and went to bed secure in the knowledge that the puddles were locked outside and could not come in and get us.

Would I kid u?

Smartfella

Lagniappe: Here is the link to the article that set me off onto this trek into what I don’t know about. If want to Read all About It , have at it...

https://reason.com/2023/05/25/supreme-court-reins-in-epa-overreach

Lagniappe Another: From my For What It’s Worth Department... There are no explicit requirements in the U.S. Constitution for a person to be nominated to become a Supreme Court justice. No age, education, job experience, or citizenship rules exist. In fact, according to the Constitution, a Supreme Court justice does not need to even have a law degree.