The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 21    Average: 3.6/5]
36 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 5642
Rating: 3.6
Category:
Date: 03/10/12 08:30 AM

36 Responses to Sackett Vs. EPA: Your Right To Live in Your Land

  1. Profile photo of wizemuler
    wizemuler Male 18-29
    19 posts
    March 8, 2012 at 8:29 am
    Link: Sackett Vs. EPA: Your Right To Live in Your Land - EPA: We think your dry lot is wetlands, and there`s nothing you can do about it.
  2. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 8:58 am
    White people problems
  3. Profile photo of simbha
    simbha Male 30-39
    412 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 9:00 am
    Technically, this didn`t make me less bored - but it`s important, so I`m glad it was posted.

    Based on the statements made in the video, I hope the SCOTUS rules in favor of the Sacketts. I`m all for the EPA`s existence to maintain and better our physical environment, but this doesn`t appear to be about that; it seems to be a power trip on the part of the EPA, and it needs to be able to be challenged. The court system exists for this reason. If the EPA cannot produce documentation/studies that justify its compliance order, the compliance order should not be able to be enforced.
  4. Profile photo of Rawrg
    Rawrg Male 18-29
    934 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 9:05 am
    The EPA is a necessary evil, as rivers used to be so polluted in this country that they caught fire and there were 100+mile deadzones where nothing lived. That said, the EPA`s powers have been extended too far into everyday life, and the absence of a reasonable appeal process is a real issue. You should be able to rectify something like this quickly through an appeals process.
  5. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 9:06 am
    White people problems...
  6. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 9:06 am
    They could have/should have sorted this out before they bought the property. It should have at least come up in the discussion when they were buying.

    If that had not worked, as it was classified a wetland for some stupid reason, go to some other lake, you don`t have a shortage of lakes...

    But it does sound like this EPA of yours has run amok.
  7. Profile photo of faustsshadow
    faustsshadow Male 30-39
    433 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 9:12 am
    @klaxor

    No, this is all people`s problems. Due process is at the heart of our legal system and everyone should be concerned anytime a government agency seeks to circumvent that process.

    I will be following this case closely, now - and I am glad this was brought to my attention.
  8. Profile photo of Nickel2
    Nickel2 Male 50-59
    5879 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 9:43 am
    Sadly it now seems that freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are being written out of the US constitution by empire builders. Ah, the land of the free...
  9. Profile photo of SilverThread
    SilverThread Male 30-39
    3431 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 9:59 am
    The E.P.A must have some feasible oversight and as with all governmental agencies must be available for redress of grievances and must be accountable to the people.
  10. Profile photo of Psimon
    Psimon Male 40-49
    69 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 10:02 am
    reason.tv is so often BS that, though I`m not sure how, I have to imagine this is out-of-context BS as well.
  11. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14621 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 10:23 am
    Remind me, weren`t they supposed to be a force for good?
  12. Profile photo of mon360
    mon360 Male 13-17
    735 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 10:36 am
    and the land of the free! and the home of the brraaaaaaadrat this im going to Canada...
  13. Profile photo of mon360
    mon360 Male 13-17
    735 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 10:37 am
    hehe, yeah that`s what i said...drat...
  14. Profile photo of phobophobia
    phobophobia Female 18-29
    4 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 10:58 am
    Watch the whole video before rating it.
  15. Profile photo of uscbadfish
    uscbadfish Male 18-29
    267 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 11:30 am
    Halfway through the video, and it seems like it`s just a white couple complaining about the EPA. Boring-ass narrator and idiotic married couple.
  16. Profile photo of uscbadfish
    uscbadfish Male 18-29
    267 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 11:37 am
    Finally made it through. So we have a one-sided argument about how terrible the EPA is for picking on this couple. Awesome. I hope they rule in favor of the EPA, and the couple has to put in a wetland.
  17. Profile photo of RoboPatton
    RoboPatton Male 30-39
    2424 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 11:40 am
    Sounds like the EPA just wanted badass vacation home.

    For the government, by the people? Is that where we are going?
  18. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25420 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 12:54 pm
    Good luck to him!
  19. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 1:41 pm
    @uscbadfish

    The EPA already stated its case it would be onesided if it weren`t for this video.
  20. Profile photo of ScottSerious
    ScottSerious Male 18-29
    5316 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 1:48 pm
    i hope they win
  21. Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 3:14 pm
    Personally, I`m mostly a fan of the EPA, but after some research, I have to agree that it looks like the EPA is tip-toeing around the legal system to get people to do what they want in cases like this.

    From what I read it looks like the Supreme Court is leaning in favor of the Sacketts, and expect to have a ruling in June.

    For legal documents see:
    SCOTUSblog - Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency

    And for a more detailed and less biased explanation of the legal problems with what the EPA is doing see:
    USA Today - High court weighs high-profile case over wetlands, EPA fines
  22. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 4:00 pm
    There are so many people struggling with trying to live without a house, that this couple`s problem`s with trying to build their perfect summer home next to a pristine lake is of small importance to me.

    It would be one thing if the EPA went in and kicked them out of their house after they lived there for years, but they moved into land that had already been sectioned off by the EPA beforehand.

    And just because it "doesn`t look like wetlands" doesn`t mean it`s okay to build on it. It would be like finding a dry spot in the everglades and building there because it`s "not wet".

  23. Profile photo of phil7243
    phil7243 Male 18-29
    143 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 4:23 pm
    Seems like this could have been solved with an EPA review and exemption. A lot of wetland data is based on general attributes of the surrounding land and historical data because it`s impossible to check every piece of land.

    If they wanted to build they should have requested an exemption first because the property should have already been classified as protected and the owners either chose to ignore it or were misinformed.
  24. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 6:16 pm
    but they moved into land that had already been sectioned off by the EPA beforehand

    It`s "commerce among the Several States" not "within" the EPA has no authority to do this.
  25. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 8:36 pm
    The EPA has been acting like douchebags for a long time now, along with the Fish and Wildlife Service and other Govt. agencies.

    The San Joaquin Valley in California was a great source of agriculture, now it`s a dust bowl because they want to protect some stupid 2inch delta smelt.
  26. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 8:41 pm
    This is what happens when you vote Democrat. Elections have consequences.
  27. Profile photo of CitizenToxie
    CitizenToxie Male 18-29
    3 posts
    March 10, 2012 at 10:37 pm
    @OldOllie

    Like voting for some radical christian hypocrite who doesn`t even believe in the separation of church & state is any better?
  28. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 11, 2012 at 1:16 am
    CitizenToxie: Not one candidate, that I know of, doesn`t believe in separation of church and state.

    I have a feeling you believe in `Freedom from religion`, which is not what the 1st amendment says.
  29. Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    March 11, 2012 at 4:24 pm
    OldOllie: "This is what happens when you vote Democrat. Elections have consequences."

    Uh... this incident with the EPA and the Sacketts started back in 2007, so this happened after Bush had been in power for 7 years and all but 2 of the 12 years prior to 2007 had had a dominantly Republican senate (and even for those two years it was almost equal). Laying all the blame on Democrats for the EPA`s actions in this case is simply ludicrous.

    Based on those facts, a more accurate version of your argument is, "This is what happens WHEN YOU VOTE REPUBLICAN."

    But hey, why let reality and the facts get in the way of what you want to believe, eh? ;-P
  30. Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    March 11, 2012 at 4:44 pm
    @CrakrJak: CitizenToxie is referring to the fairly recent comments by Rick Santorum.

    Los Angeles Times - "Rick Santorum rejects absolute separation of church and state" (2/26/`12)

    Santorum said hearing President Kennedy`s speech on the importance of the separation of church and state "makes him throw up." When later asked for clarification he said, "I don`t believe in an America where separation of church and state is absolute."

    Unless that *is* absolute, then some see it as a rejection of the principals this nation was founded upon. Specifically the importance of freedom of religion and prevention of religious control over government, both of which were seen as a problem in England at that time.
  31. Profile photo of dm2754
    dm2754 Male 40-49
    3336 posts
    March 12, 2012 at 7:44 am
    i nice to see the this happens to white people too.
  32. Profile photo of EgalM
    EgalM Male 30-39
    1707 posts
    March 12, 2012 at 8:42 am
    I guess anything done in Senate is considered due process. Douches.
  33. Profile photo of patticakes
    patticakes Female 18-29
    463 posts
    March 12, 2012 at 7:24 pm
    When regulatory agencies can make your life a living hell, then you know government is too big. We need to get our country back from these statist freaks. They want to make our nation into a third world country. We have to get rid of the EPA. Enough of these communists! I can assure you everyone who works at the EPA is Democrat. Vote not just Republican, vote Conservative!
  34. Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    March 18, 2012 at 5:45 pm
    @patticakes: That`s a demonstrably absurd claim to make.

    First of all, the EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon, who is a Republican. Are you trying to tell me that *Nixon* is a liberal communist?!?!

    The head of the EPA at the time this incident occurred was Stephen L. Johnson (2005-2009), who was appointed by George W. Bush (another commie liberal?).

    Furthermore, some people DESERVE TO HAVE THEIR LIVES MADE A LIVING HELL BY REGULATORY AGENCIES. Not the Sacketts, of course, but if you think the EPA isn`t necessary then you need to learn some history. It may have problems, but don`t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    Please, educate yourself on what exactly the Environmental Protection Agency does for you.
  35. Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    August 28, 2012 at 3:09 pm
    Update: The Sacketts won their US Supreme Court case against the EPA 9 to 0. The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could not force people to accumulate potential fines while they waited for a review of potential violations, and that people served with EPA compliance orders to stop development had the right to sue immediately to change the order.

    In the decision Justice Samuel Alito said that that the treatment of the Sacketts, and others denied a right to sue EPA, was "unthinkable" in a country that values due process.

    This means that the Sacketts can now sue to change the order that says that they`re in violation, instead of having to wait for the EPA and potentially HUGE fines. (Couldn`t find any info on whether they succeeded.)

    For details see:
    Opinion recap: Taking EPA to court
  36. Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    August 8, 2014 at 11:36 pm
    Update: As of October 2013 the Sacketts still hadn`t succeeded in demonstrating that their land isn`t wetlands so they could build their house:

    NW News Network (10/2/`13): "A Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling, But Still No House For Idaho Couple"

    Michael Sackett went on to get busted for sex trafficking of children:

    KXLY4 (12/24/`13): "Court: Former EPA crusader arrested for sex trafficking"

    He plead not guilty and, last I can find, was still under house arrest pending trial, which he had delayed under appeal.

Leave a Reply