Supreme Court Hears Sackett Case

//Supreme Court Hears Sackett Case

Supreme Court Hears Sackett Case

We’ll probably have more on this later today or tomorrow, but for those interested in how it went at the Supreme Court today, our friends at Center for Justice have posted the transcript of the oral argument. (Spoiler Alert: the EPA seemed to have a pretty tough day.)

Regardless of the outcome of the case, and regardless of how you feel about wetlands enforcement, the EPA, or anything else — the nation’s highest court is an awesome and impressive thing.  We’re extremely honored to take part.

By | 2012-01-09T11:40:30+00:00 January 9th, 2012|Water|9 Comments

9 Comments

  1. Shelley January 9, 2012 at 12:55 pm - Reply

    Thanks. I was going to check it out at the Supreme site tonight, but good to see it posted earlier.

    Yeah, rough day, indeed. Disappointing.

    In the end, no matter what kind of fairy tale gets told on about this case, you all helped provide the real facts. You should be proud, all of you.

  2. Shelley January 9, 2012 at 12:56 pm - Reply

    I’m getting a malware warning when I click the link to go to the Center for Justice web site.

    • Terry January 9, 2012 at 1:02 pm - Reply

      I get one sometimes too, and I don’t know why. I’ll vouch for them, though.

      • Shelley January 9, 2012 at 1:24 pm - Reply

        I took a chance 😉

        I have to wonder…was Stewart deliberately trying to lose this case? His performance was appalling.

  3. Shelley January 10, 2012 at 6:46 am - Reply

    Terry, I just can’t believe Stewart. I’m not a lawyer, which means I can speak bluntly.

    This is the second time he’s lost the case because of oral arguments and an inability to be able to explain the nuances of an issue rather than rely starkly on a black and white interpretation. It’s the second time Alito trapped Stewart in his own argument; the second time that Stewart allowed himself to be manipulated.

    Stewart did the same thing in Citizens Initiative, and look at the damage this has caused.

    • Shelley January 10, 2012 at 7:02 am - Reply

      He wasn’t even aware that the NRDC brief had been accepted by the Court. Wouldn’t you think he could checked this before appearing in Court?

      And I thought that the courts had agreed that no additional penalties could be applied for specifically failing to comply with the Administrative orders? That the only penalties that could apply were for those related to violations of the Clean Water Act?

      I’m trying to make sense of this before writing on it, and I just can’t.

    • Terry January 10, 2012 at 9:21 am - Reply

      He certainly led with his chin… But it isn’t over until it’s over, and even if everyone is predicting a “loss” for EPA, it could very well be a “win” for the Sacketts that industry might not be so happy about.

      For example, suppose EPA just quits sending formal administrative compliance “Orders” and instead sends less formal administrative “warnings.” I suspect such a “warning” wouldn’t have changed the Sacketts’ purported predicament one bit.

    • Shelley January 10, 2012 at 1:16 pm - Reply

      Sorry, that’s Citizens United.

  4. […] is not on your side, you argue the facts; when the facts are not on your side, you argue the law.  The Sacketts have been arguing the law fairly effectively. As this piece points out however, the facts have yet to be […]

Leave A Comment