Thursday, August 27, 2015

Federal Court Blocks Obama's Water Nationalization

by JASmius

And, of course, the Obama EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers didn't bother with the pretense of a transaction, didn't make any offer whatsoever; they just took "America's water". ALL of it. And by extension, every last piece of formerly private land over which it flows, because if you have water in any way, shape, or form anywhere on your property, you can use or modify neither. If a flood turns your back forty into a swamp, sorry, pal, you can't drain it. If the morning dew alights on your front lawn, sorry, chief, you can't mow it. And if drought is turning your pasture into a dust bowl, too bad, bunkie, you have no access to moisture via irrigation, tanker truck, hose, or any other mode of hydration. And if a passing squall de-parches it, guess what? It now belongs to Barack Hussein Obama.

And there's not a damn thing you, or we, can do about it, because the Constitution belongs to him as well.

- Me, three months ago

Now - and this does qualify as shocking news - a federal judge is actually taking exception to that despotic assertion, although not on even quasi-constitutionalist grounds - with one day to spare:

A federal judge in North Dakota on Thursday blocked a new Obama administration rule that would give the federal government jurisdiction over [all] "waterways" just hours before it was set to go into effect.

U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson [Bush43 appointee] in Fargo issued a temporary injunction against the rule which would have given the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers authority over [all] streams, tributaries and wetlands under the Clean Water Act. The rule was scheduled to take effect Friday.

“The risk of irreparable harm to the States is both imminent and likely,” Erickson said in granting the request of thirteen States to temporarily stop the rule from taking effect. The judge said that among other things, the rule would require “jurisdictional studies” of every proposed natural gas, oil or water pipeline project in North Dakota, which is at the center of an energy exploration boom.

This is undoubtedly true.  Not only did The One seek to illegally take all of our water, but he was overtly trying to collaterally shut down all energy exploration and extraction in the affected States as well.  Something that would, indeed, harm them, and the entire country, economically, with malice aforethought.  There's a just-in-case swipe at the already throttled and deceased Keystone XL pipeline project as well - kind of like snapping the neck of someone you've already shot in the head four times - which would go right through North Dakota and down the Plains States.

What is also true is that O's malicious economic attack on these "lucky thirteen" States ought to be beside the point: the EPA has absolutely and utterly no constitutional legal authority to steal our water and property rights. (What part of "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation" - i.e. determined by the property-owner - are they having such a difficult time understanding?) But I suppose that Judge Erickson couldn't go there, because if he did pull on that loose thread, he'd also have to rule that the EPA is itself unconstitutional and must be abolished, and heaven knows we couldn't have that.

True, it is a temporary injunction, but Judge Erickson's ruling makes it quite clear that he believes the plaintiffs are going to win their case:

The Rule asserts jurisdiction over waters that are remote and intermittent waters. No evidence actually points to how these intermittent and remote wetlands have any nexus to a navigable-in-fact water. The standard of arbitrary and capricious is met because the Agencies have failed to establish a “rational connection between the facts found” and the Rule as it will be promulgated.

"Evidence"?  "Evidence"?  We don't need no STEENKING "evidence"!

The Rule also arbitrarily establishes the distances from a navigable water that are subject to regulation. … Once again, the court has reviewed all of the information available to it and is unable to determine the scientific basis for the four thousand feet standard. Based on the evidence in the record, the distance from the high water mark bears no connection to the relevant scientific data purported to support this because any water that is 4,001 feet away from the high water mark cannot be considered “similarly situated” for purposes of 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(8). While a “bright line” test is not in itself arbitrary, the Rule must be supported by some evidence why a four thousand foot standard is scientifically supportable. On the record before the court, it appears that the standard is the right standard because the Agencies say it is. [emphasis added]

That's right, Judge.  And your point is....?

C'mon, you know what the word "scientific" means to these people: "Whatever our demigod wants".  They pulled four thousand feet out of their asses per the Lex Luthor principle: "If you won't give us half - WE'LL TAKE IT ALL!"  And they did take it all, come to think of it.  Which Judge Erickson, recognizing the injustice of it if not its tyrannical source, has now injuncted.

The funny part - and expression of arrogant, unconcealed contempt on the Regime's part - is that they tried to argue that he didn't have the jurisdiction to issue such a ruling precisely because the EPA rule in question is so garishly overreaching.  As if to say, "All America's waters are ours, ours, all ours.  You're just a puny little judge in North Dakota, a speck of dust in our Messiah's cosmic fugue.  Go away before we decide to squash you."  As though there's such a thing as a principle that if you break the law egregiously enough, you can put yourself beyond the reach of justice.

Not that any of it matters, of course, because Red Barry will simply sneer as Andrew Jackson once did: "Judge Erickson has made his decision, now let him enforce it."  All liquids within America's shrinking boundaries still belong to Barack Hussein Obama, even the trickle of perspiration dribbling down your brow.  But it should at least be interesting to see where this case goes from here, if only in a gallows sort of way.

No comments: