It's outrageous to see some in the lamestream media characterize a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling that stopped a tyrannical EPA from running roughshod over property owners as being a great victory for corporations hellbent on destroying the environment.
But that's what happens when major media outlets gather their "intelligence" -- if not take their marching orders -- from the likes of the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
Essentially, the high court ruled that those who build on their property have the right to challenge EPA diktats preventing building before first being forced into pauperism to comply.
It was an arbitrary and capricious EPA that forced Michael and Chantell Sackett to stop construction on their home in an almost fully developed plan in the Idaho Panhandle. The EPA classified the site, less than an acre, as a protected "wetland."
What constitutes a "wetland" remains in legal limbo. But the Sackett property clearly isn't. Or as Justice Antonin Scalia joked, the Sacketts never saw "a ship or other vessel cross their yard." They'll likely prevail in their challenge.
It was in January that NRDC senior attorney Larry Levine, fearing a Sackett victory, warned of the EPA cutting back "on the use of such orders to avoid getting bogged down in court."
Allow us to translate: The EPA no longer will be able to terrorize property owners with impunity.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.