We have preemptively awarded this site a Pulitzer Prize for outstanding journalism in the hope that its content will some day merit one! 

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Clean Water Act Ruling

Scalia's opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr., said the Corps of Engineers had stretched its authority under the Clean Water Act "beyond parody" by regulating land that contained nothing but storm sewers, drainage ditches and "dry arroyos in the middle of the desert."

The only wetlands properly subject to federal jurisdiction, Scalia said, are those "with a continuous surface connection" to actual waterways, "so that there is no clear demarcation between 'waters' and wetlands."

On the other side was Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Accusing the Scalia group of "antagonism to environmentalism," Stevens said the Scalia opinion "needlessly jeopardizes the quality of our waters."

Further, Stevens said, the Scalia group had disregarded "its own obligation to interpret laws rather than to make them. -- Seattle Post Intelligencer (on-line).

Notice that the liberal judges followed the time-honored three basic steps to a liberal retort:

    1) State that your opponents are the attackers.
    2) Condescendingly dismiss them as misguided fools.
    3) Accuse them of something they haven't done.

Bonus points are awarded if you can work in key-phrases such as environment, personal freedoms, or for the children.