Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are some here who have showed pictures of the property in question but none of them have ever allowed the story to be told so completely as this link does. I wonder just what the EPA will have to do if the Suprem Court agrees with the Sacketts. It could get very good before it is over. Ms. Jackson will have to look for a place to hide. Maybe the White House basement?
There are some here who have showed pictures of the property in question but none of them have ever allowed the story to be told so completely as this link does. I wonder just what the EPA will have to do if the Suprem Court agrees with the Sacketts. It could get very good before it is over. Ms. Jackson will have to look for a place to hide. Maybe the White House basement?
The Sacketts had petitioned to challenge the EPA's ruling. The EPA replied that the Sacketts could not challenge the ruling until after they had restored the land as demanded by the EPA, re-applied for an EPA permit to alter (again) the land to build their house, got denied the permit. At that point, said the EPA, the Sacketts could challenge the EPA ruling, but not before.
The Supreme Court ruled on March 21, 2012, that the Sacketts did not have to do all those things before challenging the EPA and getting a hearing. The EPA had to grant the hearing right away.
The Supremes ruled unanimously to reverse the 9th Circus Court of Appeals... again.
This doesn't mean the Sacketts can start building their house. And it doesn't mean that the EPA's demands are struck down. It only means that the Sacketts can now challenge the EPA and have a hearing on the matter.
The Sacketts had petitioned to challenge the EPA's ruling. The EPA replied that the Sacketts could not challenge the ruling until after they had restored the land as demanded by the EPA, re-applied for an EPA permit to alter (again) the land to build their house, got denied the permit. At that point, said the EPA, the Sacketts could challenge the EPA ruling, but not before.
The Supreme Court ruled on March 21, 2012, that the Sacketts did not have to do all those things before challenging the EPA and getting a hearing. The EPA had to grant the hearing right away.
The Supremes ruled unanimously to reverse the 9th Circus Court of Appeals... again.
This doesn't mean the Sacketts can start building their house. And it doesn't mean that the EPA's demands are struck down. It only means that the Sacketts can now challenge the EPA and have a hearing on the matter.
I certainly forgot that that link was a bit old these days. However, the Court did blow the EPA out of the water along with the 9th Circuit, as usual. Yes these people won little but they don't have to pay that exorbitant fine and the other things the EPA tried to stack on them. I think the Sacketts will continue since they went as long and as far as they did.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
