The Supreme Court back an Idaho couple in their battle against the extremists of the EPA over developing their half-acre residential neighborhood lot. Obamad radical EPA claimed this lot located in an existing residential neighborhood is a protected wetland. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/21/court-backs-idaho-couple-battle-epa/ http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/us-usa-court-epa-idUSBRE82K0YT20120321 quote: a repudiation of the principle that efficiency of regulation conquers all there is no reason to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into voluntary compliance The EPA used bullying and threats of terrifying fines, and has made our life hell Justice Scalia noted that the Sacketts property bore little resemblance to any popular conception of a wetland, protected or not. Reading a summary of his opinion in court, he noted that the Sacketts have never seen a ship or other vessel cross their yard. Taxcutter notes: It is time (as noted by Justice Alito) for Congress to revisit the Clean Water Act and clarify the meaning. Clearly, the Act has major scope for abuse by the EPA. Its abusive nature indicates that it is time for the entire agency to be revisited and abuse elements removed.
