Yes....and your point is?
On 6/19/06, mark robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> I don't consider environmental laws libertarian. Nor do I
> consider weakening them, or any other such
> prohibition/regulation/legislation, anti-libertarian.
>
> -Mark
>
> ************
> {American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
> "not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
> case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
> There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
> unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
> its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
> unjust lawsuits.
> See www.fija.org
> [Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
>
> -------------------------
>
>
> The 'new and improved' Bush Supreme Court has shown it's true
> intent.
> They will work to bring about the neocon agenda...weaken the
> environmental laws it took decades of hard fighting to bring
> about. IT
> is amazing how Supreme Court Justices can work for a neocon
> cause. If
> ANY branch needs to be impartial it is the Supreme Court. Not so.
>
> First blow struck today against Clean Water Act...read below.
>
> God help us if we don't take back the government soon.
>
> Oh...ps...it says this went AGAINST the Bush agenda....but oh
> contrare...Bush and boys are simply taking an opposite position
> than
> they have taken all along in order for it to appear the Justices
> aren't
> working with them. Thank Mr Rove.
>
> Clean Water Act Reach Limited: U.S. Supreme Court Overview
>
> June 19 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court limited the reach
> of the
> Clean Water Act, saying it applies only to wetlands with a close
> connection to a river, lake or some other major waterway.
>
> The justices, voting 5-4, ordered a new round of hearings for two
> sets
> of Michigan landowners whose efforts to build on their property
> have
> been stymied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The majority
> was
> divided in its reasoning, with Justice Anthony Kennedy refusing
> to join
> four other justices in putting even more restraints on the
> federal
> regulators.
>
> Kennedy's separate opinion now becomes the controlling law. He
> established a new test, saying the Corps can regulate only
> wetlands that
> have a ``significant nexus'' to a major waterway. He also said
> that in
> both cases before the justices, the Corps had at least some
> evidence of
> that type of connection.
>
> Kennedy's reasoning drew criticism from both ends of the court.
> Justice
> Antonin Scalia called Kennedy's test ``opaque'' and said it
> ``tips a
> wink at the agency, inviting it to try its same expansive reading
> again.''
>
> Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel Alito and
> Clarence
> Thomas joined Scalia's opinion. The case marked the first
> environmental
> test for the court's newest justices, Roberts and Alito.
>
> Stevens Dissent
>
> Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the four dissenters, said
> Kennedy's test will create new uncertainty and additional work
> for
> regulators and landowners. He also said the new test ``will
> probably not
> do much to diminish the number of wetlands covered by the act in
> the
> long run.''
>
> Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter
> also
> dissented.
>
> The ruling is a partial setback for environmentalists and the
> Bush
> administration, which argued in favor of broad federal power to
> restrict
> development.
>
> Kennedy's test has ``never been applied or used anywhere,'' said
> Joan
> Mulhern, senior legislative counsel at Earthjustice, an
> environmental
> group based in Oakland, California. ``I'd hesitate to say I agree
> with
> it or to say I don't agree with it because I'm not sure what it
> means.''
>
> Groups backing the landowners included homebuilders Pulte Homes
> Inc. and
> Centex Corp. and trade associations representing the real-estate,
> oil
> and farming industries.
>
> ``The court is clearly troubled by the federal government's view
> that it
> can regulate every pond, puddle and ditch in our country,'' said
> Reed
> Hopper, a Sacramento, California, lawyer who represented
> landowner John
> Rapanos in one of the cases. ``We are encouraged by this decision
> and
> believe it represents a good first step toward common sense
> regulation.''
>
> Commerce Clause
>
> In focusing on the meaning of the Clean Water Act, the court
> didn't
> decide a more far-reaching question presented by the case --
> whether
> Congress has power to regulate those wetlands under the
> Constitution's
> Commerce Clause.
>
> Separately, the court today ruled that crime victims' statements
> to
> police 911 operators about an ``ongoing emergency'' can later be
> used as
> trial evidence when the victim isn't available for
> cross-examination.
>
> The court also:
>
> -- Asked the Bush administration for advice on a securities-
> industry
> bid to block antitrust lawsuits that accuse investment banks of
> rigging
> initial public offerings.
>
> -- Agreed to consider a bid by Michigan to regulate Wachovia
> Corp.'s
> mortgage-lending business in a case that may open banks to new
> oversight
> across the country.
>
> -- Broadened its review of a federal law banning what opponents
> call
> ``partial-birth abortion'' by adding a California case to its
> 2006-07
> argument schedule. The justices were already set to hear
> arguments from
> a group led by a Nebraska doctor.
>
> Juvenile Murderers
>
> -- Refused to reconsider its year-old decision barring executions
> of
> murderers who were under 18 at the time of the crime, turning
> away an
> appeal by Alabama's attorney general.
>
> -- Refused to question Swedish Match AB's right to sell cigars in
> the
> U.S. under the Cohiba brand name, turning away an appeal by a
> company
> owned by the Cuban government.
>
> -- Rejected a challenge by five states to part of the funding
> mechanism
> for the new Medicare prescription-drug program.
>
> The two wetlands disputes raised slightly different questions.
> Rapanos
> was accused of destroying wetlands, without a permit, on three
> central
> Michigan sites he hoped to develop. Regulators are seeking as
> much as
> $13 million in fines and restoration of the site.
>
> Nearest Tributary
>
> The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded
> that
> the Clean Water Act covered Rapanos's property because the land
> had a
> hydrological connection to navigable waterways, ultimately
> draining into
> either the Tittabawassee River or Lake Huron. Rapanos says his
> land is
> far away from the nearest tributary -- 20 miles in the case of
> one site.
>
> In the second case, a group led by accountant Keith Carabell
> wants to
> build a condominium complex on land near Detroit. The 6th Circuit
> said
> the property was an ``adjacent wetland,'' covered under the Clean
> Water
> Act, because only a man-made barrier separated the land from
> tributaries
> of Lake Huron and Lake Erie.
>
> Carabell says no hydrological connection, either on the surface
> or
> underground, exists between his land and any tributary. The Bush
> administration disputes that contention.
>
> The court scaled back the clean-water law in 2001, when it struck
> down a
> Corps of Engineers rule designed to protect migratory bird
> habitats on
> local ponds. The justices in that case said the rule lacked a
> ``significant nexus'' to the ``navigable waterways'' that are
> covered
> under the Clean Water Act.
>
> Environmental Consequences
>
> Kennedy today said the ``significant nexus'' phrase provides the
> key to
> applying the Clean Water Act, even though that language doesn't
> appear
> in the statute itself.
>
> In the Rapanos case, Kennedy pointed to expert testimony about
> the
> environmental consequences of developing the land and a trial
> judge's
> finding of a surface connection to tributaries of navigable
> waterways.
> He said that type of evidence would help the Corps make its case,
> ``particularly if supplemented by further evidence about the
> significance of the tributaries.''
>
> At the same time, Kennedy said the appeals court went too far in
> permitting regulation any time a hydrological connection exists.
> ``Absent some measure of the significance of the connection for
> downstream water quality, this standard was too uncertain,'' he
> wrote.
>
> In the Carabell case, Kennedy said the lower courts should assess
> ``the
> quality and regularity of flow in the adjacent tributaries.''
>
> Scalia would have required a continuous surface connection to a
> river,
> lake or other permanent body of water, saying that was the most
> plausible reading of the Clean Water Act's language. He said
> Kennedy
> ``has devised his new statute all on his own.''
>
> Stevens would have upheld the 6th Circuit's ruling, saying the
> Corps
> ``has reasonably interpreted its jurisdiction to cover
> non-isolated
> wetlands.''
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/bmUd6C/fOaOAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ---~->
>
>
> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
--
*****************************************
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang
separately!" ...Ben Franklin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/bmUd6C/fOaOAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
