Image 01 Image 03

Schumer Slams ‘MAGA’ SCOTUS After 9-0 Vote That Reins in EPA

Schumer Slams ‘MAGA’ SCOTUS After 9-0 Vote That Reins in EPA

“This MAGA Supreme Court is continuing to erode our country’s environmental laws.”

The Supreme Court voted 9-0, which means unanimous, to narrow the EPA’s Waters of the United States (WOTUS).

The 9-0 vote applied to the merits of the case:

The case centered on Michael and Chantell Sackett, two Idaho residents whom the EPA prohibited from building a home near a wetland years ago, citing the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972.

“The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day,” Alito’s majority opinion stated. “The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as ‘waters of the United States’ because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not ‘waters of the United States.'”

The ruling ultimately held that the federal government’s WOTUS definition must be restricted to a water source with a “continuous surface connection” to major bodies of water.

The court split 5-4, determining “how the federal government should go about defining water sources.”

So remember. The overall decision is 9-0. SCOTUS unanimously reined in the EPA. All justices. All nine of them, including the leftists.

LOL, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Well I didn’t realize that all of the Communist Justice for also maga. It would be better for the country if they were, but I don’t think so

If Scroomer’s unhappy about it, I’m ecstatic.

    guyjones in reply to alien. | May 25, 2023 at 7:22 pm

    That’s Senator “Schmuck” Scroomer, to you!

    He’s a ruthless, fascist scumbag.

      MattMusson in reply to | May 26, 2023 at 6:52 am

      Dog whistle to violent leftists. It’s open season on Justices.

      They just hate the limitations on government imposed by the Constitution and the laws made in pursuant thereto.

      And that is the key to most of our problems. Getting government to conform to a straight reading of the Constitution. If done, fedgov would be one-tenth its present size. The biggest problem we have can be summed in three words – Too Much Government.

      Go to the Constitution is the Solution program of the John Birch Society.

    Robert Kahlcke in reply to alien. | May 26, 2023 at 4:06 pm

    This is one on the reasons why The Democrat Communist Criminal Terrorist Organization, must be destroyed.

Hyperbole much there, Senator Schumer?

smalltownoklahoman | May 25, 2023 at 7:10 pm

Huge…. no no wait… YUGE WIN for property owners, especially against one of the worst federal agencies for abusing it’s powers! This was needed, and it’s beautiful that it was a unanimous decision because it means even the lefties on the court knew the EPA was in the wrong and they couldn’t excuse what they were doing.

Sen Schumer is upset b/c this is the second strait year the EPA has gotten slapped down for exceeding the authority granted by Congress. The Chevron doctrine is being chopped down one case at a time. When it goes then rule by the administrative state and it’s ideological bureaucracy ends. The d/prog depend on Chevron to do the extremist lifting where the Congress can’t or won’t.

    ALPAPilot in reply to CommoChief. | May 25, 2023 at 10:57 pm

    From Justice Thomas:

    As I have explained at length, the Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence has significantly departed from the original meaning of the Constitution. The Clause’s text, structure, and history all indicate that, at the time of the founding, the term ‘“commerce” consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes.’ This meaning “stood in contrast to productive activities like manufacturing and agriculture,” and founding era sources demonstrate that “the term ‘commerce’ [was] con- sistently used to mean trade or exchange—not all economi- cally gainful activity that has some attenuated connection to trade or exchange.” By de- parting from this limited meaning, the Court’s cases have licensed federal regulatory schemes that would have been “unthinkable” to the Constitution’s Framers and ratifiers.

    Taking direct shots at Wickard v. Filburn: now that would completely do in the administrative state.

      CommoChief in reply to ALPAPilot. | May 26, 2023 at 7:28 am

      Just undoing Chevron would go a very long way. Without Chevron then the Courts no longer give deference (benefit of the doubt) to the agency when they make rules. That undercuts the ideological bureaucracy and puts the onus on Congress to actually pass legislation to create these extreme rules. Congress doesn’t want to do that, they like not making tough votes and being able to blame the bureaucracy.

      Wickard is down the road a fair piece IMO. Overturning it would bring absolute chaos because it impacts the scope of power of the Federal govt v just the question of whether the executive agency or Congress exercises the power. Not a bad idea IMO but the Justices tend to move slowly to avoid mass disruption. The trend of cases moving towards knocking out Wickard is definitely growing.

      henrybowman in reply to ALPAPilot. | May 26, 2023 at 7:53 pm

      “Taking direct shots at Wickard v. Filburn”

      Also a bank shot at the Chinese Exclusion Cases.

      The single most compelling argument in Fong Yue Ting claiming that immigration was a delegated power of the federal goverment was that “The constitution has granted to congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, including the entrance of ships, the importation of goods, and the bringing of persons into the ports of the United States.” But strangely, that last part appears nowhere in the constitution, being assumed ad argumentum by the claimant.

      The standard rejoinder to this claim is that “people are people, they aren’t commerce (unless they are property — slaves).”

      Thomas is apparently sympathetic to this viewpoint. Good for him.

        CommoChief in reply to henrybowman. | May 27, 2023 at 11:51 am

        Yep. The Constitution grants the Feds explicit control of naturalization while remaining silent on immigration. Considering that the Tenth Amendment was part of the bundle passed at the same time and it grants all powers not specifically granted to the Federal govt to the States (ex 9th amendment) then the argument for Federal control of immigration has always been suspect.

The Gentle Grizzly | May 25, 2023 at 7:14 pm

I really despise him…

    Schmuck Schumer is an obnoxious oaf and bully, and, always has been. This loathsome and loud-mouthed demagogue was a disgrace as a Congressional rep from New York, and, he remains a disgrace, as a Senator.

      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to guyjones. | May 25, 2023 at 8:07 pm

      And, he has that office for live. Noo Yawk City sees to that. Not sure about the rest of the state but NYC’s and Albay’s votes swamp the other voters. Like Denver does for Colorado, and the Los Angeles Basin and the By Area do in California.

        Yeah, New York State is electorally structured in a similar fashion to Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Colorado and many other states. The major urban areas and suburbs overwhelmingly vote Dumb-o-crat, while the rural counties predominantly and consistently vote for the GOP. But, as you accurately observed, those sparsely populated rural areas can’t overcome the population density of the urban areas/’burbs.

        The only way that Schmuck loses his seat is if the empty vessel, dumb-as-rocks, pathological narcissist and demagogue, Occasional-Cortex challenges him in a primary or kicks him to the curb, which I assume will happen sooner rather than later, Occasional-Cortex transparently craving even more power and attention than she presently has.

E Howard Hunt | May 25, 2023 at 7:26 pm

How did Justice Jackson know what water is? She’s not a hydrologist.

Lemme guess: reaping whirlwinds?

There goes Schumer again, protecting the “rule of law” by inciting violence.

At some point he should be brought up on ethics complaint, at minimum.

Unelected agencies should not be allowed to make laws or rules. Period. Congress cannot delegate their authority. Period.

    Aarradin in reply to geronl. | May 25, 2023 at 8:45 pm

    Absolutely correct.

    Congress has delegated its Legislative function to EXECUTIVE Branch bureaucracies.

    Not only does this violate the non-delegation clause, but those same agencies have “judges” that are the first to hear cases challenging their “rules”. The “court” they preside over is physically located inside the same bureaucracy that made the rule. And, the “judges” presiding are not Article III judges, so there is no Senate confirmation. So, this Executive Branch agencies have usurped both the Legislative and Judicial functions of government.

    SCOTUS has a case on its docket this year, I believe, which might finally overturn their idiotic “Chevron Deference” opinion, in which SCOTUS previously declared that Federal Courts should defer to the agencies on the interpretation of the rules that they make up.

Suburban Farm Guy | May 25, 2023 at 8:00 pm

They put my uncle through hell over 0.1 acre of swamp at the edge of his 5+ acre homesite. Pure obnoxious bureaucratic hell. ‘Federally protected wetlands,’ they called it. Unfortunately he died in 2005 and this relief is waaaay too late.

What a dimwit.

“continuous surface connection”

That’s a much broader definition than the statute contains, EPA should be really happy about that. Here, SCOTUS is re-writing the law.

The law grants EPA authority to regulate (in violation of the non-delegation clause of the Constitution) “NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS”.

SCOTUS here is expanding that to include all waterways that have a “continuous surface connection” to a navigable waterway. This is a vast expansion of their authority, and clearly not what Congress voted on.

The mainstream will not mention a 9-0but give him the podium. Deception at its finest.

    leoamery in reply to alaskabob. | May 26, 2023 at 5:44 pm

    This was a 5-4 decision, with Roberts casting the fifth vote. Had Roberts gone the other way, Kavanaugh’s opinion would have been the law of the land. The Sacketts might have gotten relief, but the bulldozer would still be in EPA’s possession, with Lefties driving it.

    Read Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion. it will alarm you. The only reason it didn’t happen is Roberts”s whim.


thalesofmiletus | May 25, 2023 at 8:44 pm

What, no physical threats against SCOTUS this time? Chuckie is going soft.

when your entire persona is built around anger and the inability to comprehend the details before you speak this is the result.

2smartforlibs | May 25, 2023 at 9:08 pm

A better question is why were only 50 satellite phones issued to the Senate.

stevewhitemd | May 25, 2023 at 9:13 pm

I just spent some time reading the decisions. Like many USSC decisions, they’re actually easy to read. As a non-lawyer I can’t follow the citations, but one doesn’t need to to understand where the justices are going.

I find Justice Thomas’ opinion very persuasive. But I also understand why Kavanaugh and the others disagree. Each opinion is thoughtful.

As a citizen I wish we had more decisions like this, and wish we had more politicians who (unlike Mr. Schumer) would actually read the decisions before stepping in front of a microphone.


    leoamery in reply to McGehee. | May 26, 2023 at 7:51 pm

    ” We have to acknowledge Trump’s excellent choices here.”

    Not really. Kavanaugh went to the libs again, thus making it 5-4 as you say. The fifth vote? John G Roberts. If you are comfortable with Roberts as the guardian of your rights and liberties, I can only say we are not in complete agreement

    Read Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion beginning page 68 of the cite. It’s dismaying

      henrybowman in reply to leoamery. | May 26, 2023 at 7:59 pm

      You seem determined to gaslight us that the decision “was 5-4.”
      And yet, I can read the scoreboard from here, and it still says “9-0.”
      It’s possible you’re sitting in the wrong section of the stadium.

The 5-4 decision is more important than the unanimous decision because it sets a limit on EPA power. We have to acknowledge Trump’s excellent choices here.

Now that DeSantis is officially running, we should ask ourselves whether he would nominate justices as wisely as Trump did.

Schumer looks so much the old scold that it hurts my eyes just to see pictures of him. And to hear him talk makes me want to throw up (whatever was my last meal). However, I still process what he says and find it to generally be totally inane.

henrybowman | May 26, 2023 at 12:48 am

Merry Aneurysm, Chuck.
And Many Happy Rebounds.

Congress intentionally writes a vague law, government 3 letter interprets it as they wish, Congress says there is nothing they can do. This is on purpose

If Schumer is so worried about Department overreach being shot down then he can just tell the house to write more specific and better worded bills.

Why do they hate Making America Great AGain?? I know they are doing their best to destroy America, but I can’t believe there are enough stupid Americans who would vote for that…but then, I see what the colleges are turning out, and I wonder no more.

Schumer is a loathsome turd of a human being, thanks New York!

LeftWingLock | May 26, 2023 at 8:59 am

Under the EPA test, the water that comes out of your sink and bathtub can be EPS regulated

Fat_Freddys_Cat | May 26, 2023 at 9:29 am

Best watch those knee jerks, Chuck. You might pull a muscle.

The solution is clear. Schumer is a legislator. He can propose and try to pass legislation that protects the environment and is constitutional. Why doesn’t he do his job instead of complaining about the court?

SeiteiSouther | May 26, 2023 at 11:19 am

Schumer’s Twitter account got Noted to high heaven.

It was delicious.

This MAGA Supreme Court
I don’t think that’s the insult he thinks it is. I want the Supreme Court to be in the business of making America great again, via strict adherence to the Constitution.

All water on the planet is recycled. The EPA could, under their rulemaking authority, could stretch to absurdity that evaporating water from a navigable body of water that condenses and rains onto your property 50 miles away is navigable water. Thankfully, SCOTUS saw the runaway train and derailed it.

BierceAmbrose | May 29, 2023 at 5:55 pm

“…SCOTUS unanimously reined in the EPA.’

How do you keep driving up the Grift and Graft without ever-expanding, ever-more obscure, arbitrary govt authoritah?

Cuck-y’s just got the same problem as any bubbletime CEO. The graph has to keep going up and to the right, and it wasn’t anything you did; you just got positioned for a lucky rake-off.