Narrowly, but a narrow victory is better than losing....or is it?
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the government can block development on hundreds of millions of acres of wetlands, even on land miles away from waterways, as long as regulators prove a connection to the waterways. Stevens said Scalia's opinion "needlessly jeopardizes the quality of our waters." He laid out a history of the 1972 Clean Water Act and said "the importance of wetlands for water quality is hard to overstate."
Yes, it is hard to overstate, and much like the global warming issue, I would ask, "What is the downside?"
Virtually any land in America would be covered under the government's interpretation of the law, Roberts and the court's other three conservatives complained in an opinion. The court's four liberal members said the conservatives would have opened up sensitive wetlands to polluters.
Complained? They complained? Please tell me that is a legal term. Damn, you liberals! Don't you know that the polluters are the future of our country?
Roberts said the result was confusing and that "lower courts and regulated entities will now have to feel their way on a case-by-case basis."
Is that supposed to make me feel better? Now, the issue is open to local graft and corruption, when we could have had our Supreme Court close the door on the issue forever. Once again, bureaucracy has failed us.
I am not amused. But, Disney World was built on wetlands, right? So, how can that be bad?
Oh well, those justices will all be dead soon, so why should they care?