Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

In all the news overload lately, I missed that the Clean Water Act

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
lectrobyte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 09:19 AM
Original message
In all the news overload lately, I missed that the Clean Water Act
had been overturned. You can burn a river, but not a flag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
1. according to this it was not...
I am confused. I was on vacation last week and missed this...

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=494440&category=OPINION&newsdate=6/26/2006

<snip>

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy deserves praise for refusing to join the assault by his conservative colleagues on the bench on a key environmental law. His vote proved the decisive one in keeping the Clean Water Act from being overturned. But it was disconcerting nonetheless to see Justice Kennedy trying to define a wetland. It was even more unsettling to read the inventive definitions put forth by the court's conservatives. Supreme Court justices may be experts on the law, but that hardly qualifies them as experts in ecology.

Instead, they should have focused strictly on the facts of law. At issue was the federal Clean Water Act, and how the Army Corps of Engineers applied it when it determined that two Michigan developers had filled in wetlands without a permit. The developers contended that the corps had gone too far in its interpretation, and the four conservatives on the high court agreed. But then they began to weigh in with their own ideas of what constitutes a wetland.

The question is why. Congress established a precedent for making such decisions. When it passed the Clean Water Act, it invested the Corps of Engineers with the authority to decide how it would be applied. Even the Bush White House grasped this, and sided with the corps in urging the Supreme Court not to hear the Michigan case.

For now, Justice Kennedy's definition of a wetland will act as a guide for Congress, the corps and other interested parties to follow. It provides protection for wetlands that have a significant impact on the "biological integrity" of an aquatic system. That is broad enough to cover many wetlands that might well have been at risk had the four conservative justices prevailed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lectrobyte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-26-06 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Thanks. That's something good, at least, for a change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC