Ed Morrissey
HotAir.com
1/18/2012
A month ago, I wrote about the Supreme Court’s decision to take a close look at the EPA and the lack of due process afforded to property owners who run afoul of arcane regulations, regarding wetlands in this specific case. Sackett v EPA pits an Idaho couple who wanted to build their dream house on property they bought for that purpose, and which had been zoned and properly permitted for it as well — until the EPA declared it “wetlands” and insisted that the Sacketts had to dismantle their construction at their own expense. Thanks to the convoluted rules of the EPA, the Sacketts couldn’t challenge the ruling in court unless the EPA decided to let them, and the EPA could fine them $32,500 a day while they argued it out.
Oral arguments started last week at the Supreme Court, and ABC News reported yesterday that the EPA came in for some rough treatment at the hands of Justice Samuel Alito:
The transcript and Ed Morrissey’s observations are at HotAir.com
