Supreme Court 9-0 Decision
-
The Brad
-
EPA and wetland ... it's a 5-4 decision according to news report. @LuFins-Dad where did you see 9-0 for that decision?
-
EPA and wetland ... it's a 5-4 decision according to news report. @LuFins-Dad where did you see 9-0 for that decision?
-
Really good decison on the wetlands issue. BIL got his butt kicked over a wetlands issue a couple of decades ago in Florida, in a really nice subdivision. You know, the kind where your neighbor plays for the Dolphins or has his own prosperous company?
Anyway...The lots ran from 4 to 8 acres, and several of the neighbors had horses to use on the subdivision bridle path (niece was really in to jumping at the time). As he started to get all of his permits for construction, the EPA was reevaluating the area for wetlands (Sawgrass area, Ponte Vedra) and determined about 1/4 of his lot could not be developed. He sold it at a slight loss and walked away from it.
He hasn't cared for the EPA since.
-
That's another very good ruling.
-
@Axtremus Maybe read the link, which is to the decision.
Unless we're all being gaslit by a .gov website.
Typical conservative SCOTUS, if so.
They changed Kagan's and Jackson's opinions.
I hate white males.
@Horace said in Supreme Court 9-0 Decision:
@Axtremus Maybe read the link, which is to the decision.
OK, the Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kavanaugh agree with the majority's judgement but disagreed with the rationale the majority used to get to that judgment; they separate opinions to that effect. E.g., Kavanaugh's opinion says he agrees with majority to dump the "significant nexus" test but disagree with the majority's "continuous connected surface" test.
That's explains why some reported it as a 9-0 decision while some others reported it as a 5-4 decision.
I hate white males.
Sorry to see that. Hate is often an unhealthy emotion. I hope you feel better soon.
-
-
@Horace said in Supreme Court 9-0 Decision:
@Axtremus Maybe read the link, which is to the decision.
OK, the Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kavanaugh agree with the majority's judgement but disagreed with the rationale the majority used to get to that judgment; they separate opinions to that effect. E.g., Kavanaugh's opinion says he agrees with majority to dump the "significant nexus" test but disagree with the majority's "continuous connected surface" test.
That's explains why some reported it as a 9-0 decision while some others reported it as a 5-4 decision.
I hate white males.
Sorry to see that. Hate is often an unhealthy emotion. I hope you feel better soon.
@Axtremus said in Supreme Court 9-0 Decision:
@Horace said in Supreme Court 9-0 Decision:
@Axtremus Maybe read the link, which is to the decision.
OK, the Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kavanaugh agree with the majority's judgement but disagreed with the rationale the majority used to get to that judgment; they separate opinions to that effect. E.g., Kavanaugh's opinion says he agrees with majority to dump the "significant nexus" test but disagree with the majority's "continuous connected surface" test.
That's explains why some reported it as a 9-0 decision while some others reported it as a 5-4 decision.
That would be known as dishonest reporting. A lie, even.
I doubt many SCOTUS decisions are universally supported by all justices in all facets of judgement. That's why they give different written opinions.
And I will never - ever - apologize for hating white males. If you don't, then I feel sorry for your evil heart.
-
Call me Ishmael if you will, but I hate white whales.
-
@George-K said in Supreme Court 9-0 Decision:
My disdain for them has grown to become Ahab-it.
They are real Dicks.
-
It took CBS 5 paragraphs to say that the decision was unanimous, and then hastily, within the same sentence commenting that the reasoning was split.
And of course, despite the unanimous ruling, it labeled SCOTUS as a "conservative court." (Tut, tut, look at those wingnuts).
-
It took CBS 5 paragraphs to say that the decision was unanimous, and then hastily, within the same sentence commenting that the reasoning was split.
And of course, despite the unanimous ruling, it labeled SCOTUS as a "conservative court." (Tut, tut, look at those wingnuts).
@George-K I would say it’s more complicated than that.
The court unanimously decided that this couple’s land didn’t constitute wetlands under the clean water act. Fair enough, but that in itself would have impact just on them and cases with similar fact patterns.
A majority of 5 went on to very specifically define what was included and excluded from the Act, in a very sweeping way, going far beyond what was necessary to find for the plaintiff in this one case.
So the dissent (written by that libtard Brett Kavanaugh) was on rather substantial policy matters, not quite captured by saying ‘different reasoning’.
-
It is. I was pointing out the irony of congressional leaders complaining about Scotus reversing an executive power grab of their territory. But we've pretty much passed the point when're institutional interests trump party interests, for both sides. Exceptions exist, of course.
