Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
 Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd

The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (4) |
Author: Dope1 ⎊  😊 😞
Number: of 84361 
Subject: Obama-era EPA whacked by SCOTUS
Date: 05/25/23 7:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 4
Obama's EPA used to pretend that a puddle in your property was a part of the 'Waters of the United States'. A couple in Idaho dared to build a residential house on <1acre in 2004'only to be fined and beaten up by the EPA over a puddle.

No more of that:

The EPA, however, offers only a passing attempt to square its interpretation with the text of §1362(7), and its 'significant nexus' theory is particularly implausible. It suggests that the meaning of 'the waters of the United States' is so 'broad and unqualified' that, if viewed in isolation, it would extend to all water in the United States. Brief for Respondents 32. The EPA thus turns to the 'significant nexus' test in order to reduce the clash between its understanding of 'the waters of the United States' and the term defined by that phrase, i.e., 'navigable waters.' As discussed, however, the meaning of 'waters' is more limited than the EPA believes. See supra, at 14. And, in any event, the CWA never mentions the 'significant nexus' test, so the EPA has no statutory basis to impose it. See Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 755'756 (plurality opinion).

No more of that! The Chevron doctrine is next.
Sadly, it took 19 years for the Sacketts to get Justice.

hotair.com - Boom scotus unanimously yanks chain on epa in waters of the US case

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to Dope1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (4) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Ticker or Board Name Author

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community