T O P
FuturologyBot

The following submission statement was provided by /u/I_D0nt_pay_taxes: --- >The Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments of a case between Idaho landowners and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a dispute that could redefine the scope of the country’s clean water regulations. >The first case of the justices’ new term, landing just ahead of the Clean Water Act’s 50th anniversary, will feature arguments about wetlands and when they can or cannot be regulated by the federal government. >"If that’s what the Supreme Court should decide, we’re basically rolling back the clock 50 years,” said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who chairs a House panel on water resources and the environment. “That would remove 50 percent of our critical wetlands, and 70 percent of our rivers and streams from federal protection.” >“This is a very, very, big deal for the Clean Water Act. It will determine, likely, whether the Clean Water Act can protect half of the water bodies in the country, and if it can’t, meeting the water quality goals of the law that we all count on will be virtually impossible,” said Jon Devine, who leads the Natural Resources Defense Council’s federal water policy team. >The case appears to mirror regulatory differences between the Trump administration’s efforts to limit regulations to just wetlands with continuous surface water connections to other regulated waters, and the Obama administration’s regulations, which applied the significant nexus test. >Although overshadowed by the court’s overruling of Roe v. Wade, last term saw the court vote 6-3 to pare back federal agency power in West Virginia v. EPA, a case that reined in the government’s authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. >Court watchers believe the conservative majority court will continue its rightward trajectory this term. >“There’s no reason to think this coming term, or any term in the foreseeable future, will be any different,” Irv Gornstein, executive director of Georgetown Law’s Supreme Court Institute said recently. “On things that matter most, get ready for a lot of 6-3s.” --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/xu0c20/supreme_court_to_hear_case_that_could_have/iqszl3d/


[deleted]

I look forward to drinking whatever the corporate overlords decide is too expensive to properly dispose of.


Fuzzycolombo

We don’t even have to go that far. Micro plastics and pharmaceutical drugs are already infused


YukariHitsugi

You should be more worried about the PFAS in the water. It’s everywhere. Heinously expensive to remove from wastewater.


nelly5050

So that’s why I’m addicted


riodin

Brawndo's got what plants crave


CoweringInTheCorner

It's got electrolytes


Fit-Firefighter-329

It's got electrolytes


Aware-Salamander-578

GO AWAY IM BAITIN’


tpro72

Like in the tawlet


cariocano

Nestle has entered the chat


Akrevics

Nestle funded the chat, was a major contributor to the chat existing to begin with


Shuggaloaf

...and the chat devs? Children.


FACEMELTER720

Brawndo, its got electrolytes!!!


LegitimateCrows

I fully expect their decision to do all that is possible to further fuck the general population.


Parafault

But with all the extra profits you’ll make by dumping toxic chemicals into the water supply, you’ll have no problem affording the lifelong stream of medical bills.


Littleman88

If only prices ever actually went down. They're not about to give up their increased profit margins so easily.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Fire__Marshall__Bill

I agree with everything you said except this part: >water cleaning systems (we plebs can't afford), such as reverse osmosis I had an RO system in my old house. It was a small, under the sink system but it was good enough for drinking water, ice cubes and filling a pasta pot. Last I checked it ran around $300 Not saying everyone can afford that, and not disagreeing or trying to debate or anything, I'm sure the ultra rich have whole house RO filters and filtered toilet water. lol Just wanted to mention that there are affordable RO filters for anyone that may be interested. Edit: unlike everything else, it seems these systems have actually come down in price. The [RO system, holding tank and counter drinking water dispenser for $200](https://www.lowes.com/pd/APEC-Water-Essence-Premium-Quality-5-Stage-Under-Sink-Reverse-Osmosis-Drinking-Water-Filter-System/1002824078). Not bad.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Akrevics

Good thing people (corporations) don’t need medical bills! /s


I_D0nt_pay_taxes

"Looks like lead water is back on the menu boys!"


Khaldara

“How else are we supposed to ensure a bright new future for America, full of Boeberts as far as the eye can see?! Leave no nose un-crayoned!”


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


catfurcoat

"well see there's nothing in the Constitution about no lead in water so we just have to assume that means that the founding fathers intended it to be there"


Sketzell

Omg I hate how accurate this is


Zeraru

Putting the lead in leader.


Askmyrkr

Historically accurate disentary


nankerjphelge

Rivers on fire like they were in the 70s? Sure, why not!


zombielumpy

Chicagoans: it was off the menu?


altcastle

Wouldn’t be that surprised.


yijiujiu

As a Canadian, it's been disappointing to watch as the US legislators seem to make the worst possible choice at most conjunctions that have appeared in the past... I dunno, at least 5 years? I guess seeing Alex Jones get fucked and the Jan 6 stuff actually doing something is nice, but I fear the same as you on this.


conker223

It doesn’t help, but over half of Americans likely agree with you. But the way our legislative system works, it gives more power to rural communities which tend to be less well educated and more religious conservatives that vote republican. But the only people that can change the system is Congress and why would they change it when they benefit from it…


yijiujiu

Yep, a Gordian knot. The republicans have decided its better to game the system than change what they're offering. And so far, it's working. Slowly but surely, they're doing everything they can to undermined US democracy. It will be the country's undoing if not stopped, but I think we're all at a loss for how that might even be done.


TheConboy22

Trump's presidency skewed the Supreme court heavily in favor of corporations and republican ideals that are very anti the people.


DoobieBrotherhood

Let’s place the blame where it belongs — on our voters (and especially those who choose not to vote).


yijiujiu

Blame unfairly placed. With the gerrymandering, the electoral College, the broken media, the disinformation, the voter suppression, the changing of requirements for voting, the inefficiency of voting locations and making it illegal to bring queuers water - no, I don't think it's the fault if those who see the system is broken and being discouraged by it.


n3w4cc01_1nt

["well, the romans used lead to sweeten wine all the time i don't what the issue is because look at how prosperous they were."](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2019/11/29/archaeological-skeletons-from-london-prove-some-romans-were-lead-poisoned/)


South_Data2898

I 100% thought this was going to be a real link to a real quote by MTG.


yaosio

The supreme court is a tool of the ruling class so of course we will be screwed. Say goodbye to clean water.


boogiewithasuitcase

+ future generations.


Yeetaway9601

I saw Roe v Wade, I'm not from US so this is just a question, but wasn't Roe v Wade the ruling that federal government can't say what goes for states? Is that what is happening here, the federal government has stuff in place for clean water?


seriousbangs

No, Roe v Wade was a ruling that the American Constitution guarantees a certain amount of privacy and freedom from interference by gov'ts (State and Federal) and that therefore it's unconstitutional to criminalize abortion services. What's happening here is that our courts have been packed by right wing extremists who do not care in the slightest what our constitution says. Say what you will about Roe v Wade but the backing on these laws is literally centuries of court precedence. If (likely when) they throw it out they're signaling that the rule of law no longer applies to the US Supreme Court.


UncommercializedKat

Lawyer here. I read Dobbs v. Jackson (the case that overruled Roe v. Wade) and the court in Dobbs said that the court in Roe went beyond its authority when it issued Roe. They said that the Roe court was essentially making laws which isn't the Supreme Court's place. That the proper way to assure abortion rights is for Congress to pass a law saying so. This case appears to be different. It's deciding what legal standard to apply to wetlands. The current standard offers more protection that the opposing party's standard that they're advocating for. There's obviously a line that needs to be drawn, it's just a matter of where we should draw it. Of course, any supreme court ruling can be changed or affirmed by Congress passing a law. Or potentially by state and local laws that don't conflict with federal laws.


TheConboy22

Which sounds good and all, but the right wing of congress does whatever they can to sit on their hands and not pass any laws.


seriousbangs

I know what the court said and they were lying. They don't actually believe that as a matter of law, that was just the excuse they gave. They're partisan hacks, and history will remember them as such if we're still a democracy in 10 years.


UncommercializedKat

I was more clarifying to the poster above you. It seemed like they were asking about Dobbs when they said Roe. You answered the question they asked but not what they intended to ask so I did. And your answer didn't address the second question at all so I added that in. Your comment just seemed like an appropriate place to clarify.


OriginalCompetitive

Nothing like that. Congress is responsible for passing legislation to protect water. They did so, but it’s unclear how the legislation should be interpreted because it’s ambiguous. So the court has to decide. If Congress was functional, Congress could simply clarify the law, but they are incapable of passing any laws.


River_Pigeon

Best comment about this story anywhere


candyowenstaint

BRAWNDO! It’s got what plants crave


Ciscoblue113

I fully expect them to do whatever is the least humane option possible


RockerElvis

And then complain that no one respects them.


PandaTheVenusProject

People say this about capitalism but then are too lazy to fact check red scare propaganda. Like guys. Nixon and Regan lied. Shocker. The ratio of people criticizing socialism vs the ratio of period who can tell you what socialism is should be a tip off that we are getting duped. But nah. Drink your corporate water. It's way better then watching a 1 hour long [video](https://youtu.be/a1WUKahMm1s). 1 hour is too long. Let's drink lead instead.


JanB1

Dude, what? Is this in response to the previous commenter? Because it's so out of context...


Ironically__Swiss

I never knew I'd get to play out Cyberpunk 2076 IRL


K4m30

Cyberpunk, but without all the cool shit, and more r/aboringdystopia


Rauleigh

Cyberpunk has been steadily becoming more real for a while


johnnybeehive

Incidentally isn't 2023 the year when all the mess started in that game lol?


uGotSauce

See also : Supreme Court rules 3 mega corporations own all water supplies on earth, and can legally come together to decide how much to charge.


MmmmMorphine

Also, the constitution grants the right to arm bass with lasers on their heads, for self-defense.


skeedlz

Good lord. What the actual f**k is wrong with the American government? This is very concerning


Outside-Car1988

Did I misunderstand the issue? Isn't federal gov. trying to protect the water resources from land owners?


skeedlz

It is more in regard that it is up to the Supreme Court in this instance. The current court doesn't have a very good record with seeming to care about environmental impacts and protections. That is the concern I was pulling from. Why it is even up for decision is ridiculous. Wetlands filter out so much pollution. Straight kidneys of nature.


Sketzell

Of course the people who can afford to move wherever, pay inflation prices, and build fancy bunkers if needed don't care about the environment. By the time they realize they've messed up the rest of us will be dead and there won't be an environment to protect.


lightscameracrafty

Idk man. We all share the water table. Gonna be much harder for even rich people to secure their own water supply source if this court has its way.


gowiththeflohe1

No they’ll just sell an expensive filter


fredandlunchbox

It’s not environmental laws that they’re against — it’s all federal regulatory power. EPA is just the start, but FDA / FTC / ATF — anyone who says “You can’t do X, Y or Z,” is going to be the subject of an unfortunate ruling that strips them of authority sometime in the next few years. They learned early on that they couldn’t use congress to dismantle the legislative state, but with 5 supreme court seats, they could undo the whole damn thing in just a few years. That’s the plan they’ve been working toward for 50 years.


oboshoe

The SC isn't being asked to evaluate the environment, how the effectiveness of Wetlands affects pollution. It's not up for debate and isn't being debated. THe SC is being asked to evaluate the fitness and constitutionality of the law that regulates the wetlands. If the law is unfit, then Congress made a mistake and should amend it. (FWIW, I have no opinion on the constitutionality of the law. I'm just clarifying WHAT is actually being debated)


hennypennypoopoo

>If the law is unfit, then Congress made a mistake and should amend it. if SC decides that it is unconstitutional they can't just amend it to be more specific, because they would be saying congress *doesnt have the authority to regulate* those types of wetlands. Any amended legislation that affects those lands would be struck down in court. It would require a constitutional amendment to overrule the SC


JustinTime_vz

Losing the forest for the tree. Is there anything to protect the wetlands if it's deemed unfit/unconstitutional?


lightscameracrafty

The law is fit. That’s why there’s decades of precedent > I’m just clarifying WHAT is actually being debated Nah, you’re just mouthing off the lies these people have fed you so you keep quiet while they destroy *your* drinking water to please their overlords


PeterDTown

Well, yes, but the broken federal government system installed this extremist Supreme Court, and the structure of the American Supreme Court is so messed up that it will be like this for the foreseeable future, progressively and determinedly eroding the government’s powers to protect the American people.


maretus

Come on, this is some bullshit. These people went through EVERY channel BEFORE buying the land to make sure they could build their house. The land isn’t wetlands - and the EPA is using an over broad definition to call it that. These people essentially got fucked into buying worthless land. They can’t build on it even though prior to spending the money - they were told they could. I’m all for protecting wetlands - that’s not what’s on these peoples property.


stimulatedrenrutter

Even still, a ruling in favor of the landowner is only going to set a legal precedence that could be catastrophically devastating to the state of the environment around us as more property owners will be able to site this case in future instances of similar disputes. This is the crack in the dam that could either save it or destroy it depending on what the court decides.


Zoutaleaux

It's not really the "government", per se. It's the SCOTUS republican appointees. It's ok to say that ... No need to try to pretend it's just the vague government in general. Be precise; it clouds the issues otherwise.


hambuster

If you aren’t incredibly rich, they hate you. That’s all


ZipoBibrok5x108

“The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor” -Voltaire


quats5

“Hate” takes effort. They just don’t particularly care — or even really notice we exist — unless they are inconvenienced somehow or want to sell us something. Why waste energy on the rabble? It’s the corporations that can grease the palms or pay the high end lawyers and marketing people to make the pretty presentations on what they want (at really nice restaurants or resorts, of course). When has a random Joe Blow bought a schmantzy dinner for a Senator, eh?


oboshoe

The court is hearing a citizen who has brought a grievance about a the fitness of law that has been passed. This is Democracy and exactly what good government looks like. Now maybe the SC makes a good decisions, or maybe they don't. That's a future moment. But I think that a citizen having is day in court to question a law is a damn good thing.


LikeAMan_NotAGod

Given the court has a conservative majority, and given that conservatives are aggressively opposed to a liveable environment, I think we all know what the ruling will be. Conservatism is a plague of deception, sickness and death.


Informal_Drawing

Aggressively opposed to a liveable environment - that is such a good way to put it.


TerpenesByMS

Yawp blame Newt Gingrich, prototype gov't unravelling shit-spewer. A literal interpretation of "conservative" seems to naturally include "conservation". Change less = conserve = protect the environment. There are actually some conservatives like this, Ive met some. Sadly not enough. Here lately it only means "anti-Democrat".


republicanvaccine

I have hope for a cure.


Big_Forever5759

Has there ever been a big protest at the Supreme Court where it gets into full riot mode? It seems it might be getting there.


tunaburn

If there is even a tiny hint of protests at the Supreme Court they immediately put up barbed wire fencing and barricades and call in the national guard. You're totally able to storm the capital though if you want.


Shirowoh

I feel like Harper v Moore will be enough for riots, depending on how they rule. I am legit terrified they will take all the power away from voters. Dark times.


Throwaway_7451

Mark my sad, depressed words, Harper v Moore could be the end of the American experiment. And we're sleepwalking into it. We would need a constitutional amendment in the next few weeks to avoid it.


TeamToken

It’s amazing seeing this conservative court compared to the new deal era conservative court of the 1930’s. When the first phases of the New Deal got struck down, FDR got pissed and threatened cap the age of justices and force them into retirement (he eventually backed down). Just when it looked like the whole thing was going get tossed out, the court completely backflipped and passed most of it in it’s entirety. Nobody really knows why they folded so suddenly, but the general consensus is that the justices were first and foremost worried about SCOTUS’s legitimacy in the eyes of the American public. A populace that is angry and distrusting of the rule of law and the Judicial pillars of a democratic nation was far more consequential than ideology. This court literally does not give a single fuck.


Shirowoh

You’re right. The conservatives on the bench only care what the federalist society thinks, not Americans.


I_D0nt_pay_taxes

>The Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments of a case between Idaho landowners and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a dispute that could redefine the scope of the country’s clean water regulations. >The first case of the justices’ new term, landing just ahead of the Clean Water Act’s 50th anniversary, will feature arguments about wetlands and when they can or cannot be regulated by the federal government. >"If that’s what the Supreme Court should decide, we’re basically rolling back the clock 50 years,” said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who chairs a House panel on water resources and the environment. “That would remove 50 percent of our critical wetlands, and 70 percent of our rivers and streams from federal protection.” >“This is a very, very, big deal for the Clean Water Act. It will determine, likely, whether the Clean Water Act can protect half of the water bodies in the country, and if it can’t, meeting the water quality goals of the law that we all count on will be virtually impossible,” said Jon Devine, who leads the Natural Resources Defense Council’s federal water policy team. >The case appears to mirror regulatory differences between the Trump administration’s efforts to limit regulations to just wetlands with continuous surface water connections to other regulated waters, and the Obama administration’s regulations, which applied the significant nexus test. >Although overshadowed by the court’s overruling of Roe v. Wade, last term saw the court vote 6-3 to pare back federal agency power in West Virginia v. EPA, a case that reined in the government’s authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. >Court watchers believe the conservative majority court will continue its rightward trajectory this term. >“There’s no reason to think this coming term, or any term in the foreseeable future, will be any different,” Irv Gornstein, executive director of Georgetown Law’s Supreme Court Institute said recently. “On things that matter most, get ready for a lot of 6-3s.”


lightscameracrafty

Well. It’s not so often that I read something that runs an absolute chill down my spine, but this article did it.


Shirowoh

Don’t read about Harper v Moore then…. It’ll ruin your day.


IamNotIncluded

Let me guess, dumping PFAS, dioxins, into rivers is protected free speech.


the_real_MSU_is_us

Probably moreso the law Congress passed doesn't actually say they can do what they've been doing. If we want our beurocracies to do X, the SC wants a law saying they can do X. Which is 100% how it SHOULD work, but we all know the Rs will block anything on topics like this from being passed so the end result is worse for us. Basically, we've had 50 years of "progress" based on sketchy SC rulings (that can be overturned) or execute orders "that can be ripped up my the next guy) or beurocracies doing more than they technically have authority to do (which the current SC is putting an end too). None of this progress is built on sound foundation- public support and congressional laws. Many ideas from the past are alive and well. We just pretended like they were defeated because we had a SC case on our side- but IRL there's enough Republican voters that think it's fine for companies to pollute rivers for profit that we won't be able to get a Clean Water Act with teeth and clear wording passed.


hmountain

It's not like those R voters are even a majority though, there's just enough of them that the skewed system of representation allows them to have an outsized say in things.


regalrecaller

Citizens United bro


johnn48

If past is prologue the Supreme Court is on a journey to leave it up to the individual states to determine their own laws and regulations. However we’ve a history that left to their own devices, States weigh Corporate Interests above Public. In addition States Rights once included the right to own people and later Segregate and Discriminate based on arbitrary values. Legislators rarely give you more rights.


Maenethal

“…[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” - United States Declaration of Independence


Kaartinen

Does the US have competitive payment rates when it comes to wetland protection? I'm from Canada and work at a local watershed district. By law high class wetlands are protected from draining, diversion, or fill. Medium class wetlands require government permission to perform these actions, but lower class wetlands (ephemeral) are not currently protected. We offer landowners annual payment on 10 year terms to not drain, fill, or divert class 1 & 2 wetlands. Payment value is based upon the land value. Due to the nature of class 1 & 2 wetlands, the land can still be used for crops (they typically dry by June-July). Is this a similar practice in America?


lightscameracrafty

> we offer landowners annual payment I believe there are tax deductions for folks whom have wetlands on their land, but not direct payments.


oboshoe

That's pretty big difference since wetlands are almost never revenue producing land, a tax deduction against that revenue is a pretty empty incentive.


lightscameracrafty

It’s a tax deduction on property taxes, not revenue. I’m not saying it’s better - OP asked how it works and I’m filling him in.


oboshoe

Fair enough. Gosh though. THat's even worse. You get to pay less taxes on land that doesn't produce. In Canada the governments pays you to not use it. In America you pay the government to not use ("but hey...we'll cut a you a little break buddy))


DeathMetal007

The current issue is that a beauracracy can redefine wetlands because Cingress did not. The issue of wetlands come up because the term 'navigable waters' which seems to include wetlands in a broad definition. This is unclear to lay people and open to interpretation broadly which the Supreme Court loves to dive into. Imo the Supreme Court will push back the law to Congress asking for more information and thought.


Tway4wood

This is literally a case where the EPA is trying to regulate a non-wetland under the CWA. They're assessing fines, not offering payment.


No-Height2850

Guaranteed that we will not have an EPA in a few years. They’re all about deregulating everything but women’s ovaries.


MmmmMorphine

Hey it's not easy taking care of a lil' corporation. They need constant tax breaks and frequent name changes after bad PR due to illegal activities, not to mention occasional discipline in the form of laughably small fines.


Devilsgospel1

Why the fuck are conservatives so set on increasing the risk of killing everyone and everything? They may think they’re saving babies but really they’re killing women. But water…who the fuck are they saving by reducing the amount of federally protected wetlands?!


wheelofka

The almighty dollar is their only goal. And power too. Tax cuts for rich and corporations. Tax hikes for middle class. Screw the environment in favor of corporations massive profits. Repeat.


[deleted]

[удалено]


lightscameracrafty

It’s not. They’re seeing the writing on the wall and instead of doing something about it they’re pillaging while they still can.


markmevans

If you're rich, you can afford to live where ever you want. You can afford household water filters, HEPA air filters, CO2 scrubbers, supplemental oxygen, etc. If you're not rich, but your livelihood depends on polluting (and all livelihoods do to varying degrees), then what matters most is the next paycheck. Plus, many "conservatives" are religious and think God will sort everything out (in their favor.) You'd be surprised how many people think God controls the climate or Jesus is returning "any day now," so nothing matters.


politely_realistic

And they will rule in favor of corporations and cause harm to people at all costs


Emberlung

Good to know some rednecks in bumsfuck Idaho are free to partition more critical ecosystems out to corporations on behalf of the rest of the world during an environmental apocalypse.


Sonofabeechikeelu

Just…fuck this country. Cups full of cancer for everyone at this point.


lounge_l1zard

Lol- they’ll say clean drinking water isn’t in the constitution and throw it out.


Shirowoh

Harper v Moore is the most important case they are taking. SCOTUS can literally end our republic based on their ruling.


MycroFeline

This one will surely be called “Row vs. Wade” and will sink the US further into 3rd World Country status.


Endmedic

Biden should stack the court against these psychopaths.


mydogargos

So as this seems a bit unprecedented the way the court is going so against what it would seem the majority of Americans actually want... is there any recourse at all for us? Is there anything we can do other than wait for these asshats to expire or retire?


KnobWobble

Impeachment, but that will never happen.


roundearthervaxxer

I expect the Supreme Court to rule favorably for working citizens in advance of Harper vs. Moore, where they will strip the right to vote from millions of Americans. Watch for it.


Wipperwill1

Extreme capitalism is just as destructive to people as extreme communism. People who aren't too bright think that we don't need government protection from corporate fuckery. I could list a dozen instances of corporations fucking over people just to make a buck, without even trying. One that comes to mind the the destruction of rivers in West Virginia from improper coal mine leavings. Not gonna mention cigarettes, DDT, or any of the other myriad poisons.


KnucklesTheChuckle

I wouldn't even argue that it's extreme capitalism anymore as it's like 4 businesses that own nearly everything, it's more of a corporatocracy at this point. Capitalism would allow competition, the current market structure is owned by 3-4 large businesses who go out of their way to enact policies that actively prevent and shut down competition at the smallest level. Capitalism is pretty dead in America right now.


SectorEducational460

Yay, lead to further lower iq. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/lead-gasoline-blunted-iq-half-us-population-study-rcna19028 As well as increase crime rates https://www.niskanencenter.org/research-roundup-lead-exposure-causes-crime/


SirJamesMonster

We're fucked. Time to stock up on water filters and improve rain collection systems - if you happen to live where there's rain. And don't forget - all the rain is polluted now as well.


River_Pigeon

OP took the time to put the story in the comments and still no one is reading it lol


FIREishott

Here I was thinking we'd established clean water as a human right. Silly me. Enter republican judge "u dOnT dRinK fRoM tHe WetLAnds". Sir/Madam, have you heard of the WATER TABLE and DOWNSTREAM POLLUTION? No, ok glad to have you making the decisions pass the lead gasoline next please.


briansabeans

When can we impeach Justice Kavanaugh for perjury and sexual assault? I've been waiting for years for the man to pay for committing crimes live on national television when he perjured himself repeatedly during his confirmation hearings.


oboshoe

Yes We can. We (Congress) has simply decided not to do it. BUt yes it's possible.


Scooterks

They won't give a shit. They all drink bottled water from their ocean borne yachts anyway.


Dwayne_dibbly

America is great eh, drinking water thats worse than piss your kids get shot when they go to school, you go bankrupt if you get ill, you get sacked from your job for literally anything at all, get fook all holidays from the job you will probably get sacked from and even worse if you are black you will get shot by the police. Wish I lived there /s


wheelofka

If the court votes the corporate way on this you know it is corrupt. But we already know they lied about Roe so how low will the judges go? There should be a better process to remove biased politicized taliban-like pawns.


baronmunchausen2000

OMG! This group deciding water quality, right after ruling on power plant emissions? We are so screwed.


Tracedinair76

They already ruled the [EPA can't EPA](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/the-supreme-court-curbed-epas-power-to-regulate-carbon-emissions-from-power-plants-what-comes-next/). I do not see this going a different way.


_illumia

I feel heartbroken and powerless. Please God make it stop.


Sketzell

You do have power. A lot of the folks in the court are at the end of their terms and therefore can be voted out in November. Get to the polls and get your friends there too. We can kick out these bad eggs and fix this.


_illumia

I'll be there for sure. Fortunately my state leans blue pretty heavily. Hate to sound pessimistic but it still feels like none of my efforts have mattered so far. I'll keep trying though, it's all we can do


Moosetappropriate

Trust this bunch to do what’s in the corporate best interests


BeerNES

I just knew this was not going in any way that benefits the people of this country. Who needs a clean environment right?! /s


Techn028

With this Supreme Court I'd imagine they'd mandate a minimum lead level for those whose parents earn below a certain amount just to ensure the current status quo. It's what the framers of the constitution intended.


jimdotcom413

In a surprise ruling they’ve issued that all water in the US is now owned by Nestle.


Hibercrastinator

So we can expect the SC to vote to hurt Americans again. Wtf.


Even-Plan-9190

The concept of judicial review is so fucked. The Supreme Court is now taken hostage by corporations and religious zealots who are using it to bypass any and all regulations on industry. Fuck this country.


digitalforestmonster

The supreme court has become a bunch of cringy and illegitimate little piss babies put in place by a Russian asset con artist and traitor.


dextrousfuckery

Fuuuck, can the supreme court make one good decision? Jesus


halfanothersdozen

Well I suppose kids born a couple years from now will start growing multiple heads


226Space_rocket7

And even if the child is going to die, the parents will still have to go through with the pregnancy. :(


InsecuriTruck

They just be redacted and will join theb republican voter base


Sketzell

The most annoying part of the supreme court's antics lately is they can blame anything that goes awry on the president or the president's party and all the casual voters will believe them.


Maximum_Indication

I think anyone that makes a decision on water quality must be forced to drink the water that they approve of.


AsIamsoyouwillbe

These corporate theocrats are sure to destroy more of our ability to protect the environment. I’m sure by the end of their time they will have destroyed the Clean Water act, Clean Food act, Voting Rights act, Civil Rights act. They are dead set on dragging the country down into the dark ages.


Boozy_Cat_

Is this where we find out we have no right to water?


ScoobyDerp

I feel a sense of dread any time I hear about a case going to this Supreme Court. I have no faith that they’ll do what’s right.


Level2intern

If SCOTUS interprets the law to provide an unsatisfactory level of protection then Congress has the obligation to amend said law or pass a new one. That is the process and it exists for good reasons. The effectiveness of congress to actually do something and the politicization of SCOTUS obviously don't help matters...


AwayAd9297

they already fucked over the EPA and its power to regulate regarding CO2 now they are coming for the drinking water, fantastic.


jozzabee

Damn liberals, pushing a far left agenda as if water is of any use to any of us


Tway4wood

The EPA in this case is claiming a drainage ditch on a property with no water allows them to assess tens of thousands in fines on a family if they build a house. They've been litigating this since 2004. What a ridiculously biased and sensationalist article. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-454


BenAustinRock

Article is unbelievably dishonest. The EPA has abused its authority on “wetlands” for decades. It has harassed landowners and regulated them even if the “wetland” was an isolated pond. Of course this is why the case is described in generic terms. People who think that the EPA has at times over stepped their authority don’t think that there is no role for it to keep our waters clean. This is where the article is dishonest. There is room for both protections from landowners from an overzealous bureaucracy and room for that bureaucracy to perform their intended mission. The two are not mutually exclusive.


CascadianExpat

I hate articles like this. The Court is going to hear a legal dispute. It’s going to have to answer a legal question about the legal authority of Congress and a federal agency. But instead of talking about the legal dispute and the laws at issue, the media and politicians focus on the practical merit of the disputed policy to get people whipped up and primed to be outraged by the outcome. That’s not helpful for democracy. Democracy depends on the rule of law and checks and balances, and treating court cases as political theater undermines both. Edit: Democracy also depends on a well educated and informed populace that understands the workings of government. Good journalism contributes to that. Bad journalism detract from it by sacrificing accuracy and nuance to agenda and outrage. This article is the latter.


The-Initiative

Problem is, a lot of these issues are already settled law. These cases are being drummed up just to give the SC the opportunity to overrule precedent. Otherwise, why would the court even bother granting Certiorari?


MyRottingBrain

When should be people be upset about the real world consequences some of these decisions carry with them?


CascadianExpat

I’m not saying they shouldn’t be upset; I’m saying that the upset should be directed at the right place. Notice that, while the article predicted the outcome of the case, and railed against the predicted outcome, and suggested that the problem was the ideological makeup of the Court, it provided no legal reasoning for why the case should come out one way or another. The article was written to provide an emotional response against the Court for a bad policy outcome. But it’s not the Court’s job to make good policy, and it doesn’t help the national discourse to misdirect public anger.


MyRottingBrain

If you don’t think the court’s ideological makeup is not the guiding factor in their decisions lately, then you must not be listening to the justices who brag about exactly that.


divacphys

This Supreme Court doesn't give a shit about constitution, precedence, legal standing. They got their jobs by blowing ALEC members and they know it, so they'll just do whatever they're told.


tripp_hs123

Very good comment.


Dependent-Worry-1551

I weep for America. It seems to be nothing but news that foreshadows a revolution with a more democratic constitution or a civil war which exterminates the invasive chancres spreading puss upon its existing one.


BingoWhitefish

I live in the Great Lakes State. This is terrifying. And here I was just worried about the future violent protests as the fascist federal government approves pipeline after pipeline, flushing our freshwater down to some degenerate southern state as our shorelines become beach deserts. Can’t wait for the future.