Antonin Scalia has always come across to me as one of those smart guys who because he scored well on standardized tests, it proved he was smarter than anyone else around. That his farts were sweet perfume, his every stupid utterance was Platonic dialogue.
And like most of that ilk of sheltered dope, when he tries to be funny, or clever, it just aqdds more evidence to the pile of what an unpleasant, ignorant turd he really is. I could see him helping to draft a marriage contract like the one for that nut in Iowa.
Strip Search Sammy Scalito may be a similar type, but at least he is clearly aware of how repugnant he is.
So, that said, there's an interesting challenge to the Clean Water Act in front of the court right now. The issues are basically around the definition of what water is actually covered by the phrase "navigable waters". And more broadly, what is the limit of the ability to regulate private actors whose actions will cause water quality to go down, and pollution to go up?
There are actually two cases consolidated here -- Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States Army Corps of Engineers -- but they both cover the same issues. The Rapanos case is a little more distinct because Rapanos himself comes acdross as such an unpleasant, vituperative jackass. Just one example, from the filing:
In December 1988, John Rapanos asked the state to inspect the Salzburg site in hope of obtaining a permit to construct a shopping center at this location. The state informed him that the site was likely a regulated wetland and sent him an application for the necessary permits. A state representative toured the site in March 1989, noting that the site probably contained wetlands but could be developed if the necessary permits were issued. Mr. Rapanos hired a consultant, Dr. Goff, to prepare a report detailing the wetlands on the Salzburg site. Dr. Goff concluded that there were between 48 and 58 acres of wetlands on the site, presenting his findings in the form of a report and a map. Upset by the report, Mr. Rapanos ordered Dr. Goff to destroy both the report and map, as well as all references to Mr. Rapanos in Dr. Goff’s files. However, Dr. Goff was unwilling to do so. Mr. Rapanos stated he would “destroy” Dr. Goff if he did not comply, claiming that he would do away with the report and bulldoze the site himself, regardless of Dr. Goff’s findings.
(Highlights are mine.)
The Carabell situation is a lot more understandable. The owners of a chunk of wetlands (near Lake St. Clair want to build a big condo on the "15.96 acres of wooded wetlands, constituting one of the last remaining large forested wetland parcels in Macomb County." The local Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality got ordered by a judge to allow the development, even though they had initially denied the permit because the Fish and WIldlife and the EPA had opposed it. Even so, the judge indicated that the state permit didn't imvalidate the need for permission from the Corps of Engineers. Who, surprisingly, said no.
Given all the foofaraw, this kind of legal battle seems not unreanable. It is as much about states rights versus federal oversight.
This is where it gets into the Clean Water Act. The language of the CWA covers "navigable waters". The Carabells are appealing, saying that there land sholdn't be subject to the CWA, as defined by the EPA and the Corps and the federal givernment in general. From here, I should just quote from the filing again, for clarity:
Congress has defined “navigable waters” as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). The EPA and the Corps have defined “waters of the United States” to include:
(1) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be
susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters
which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
(3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including
intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes,
wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or
destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce....
(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United
States under the definition;
(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) of this section;
(6) The territorial seas;
(7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves
wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a)(1)-(6) of this section.
33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a) (Corps) (emphasis added); see also 40 C.F.R. § 122.2 (EPA).
The Corps defines “adjacent” to mean “bordering, contiguous, or neighboring.” 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c). “Adjacent wetlands” include “wetlands separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like.”
Whatever you may think of that definition, it's pretty clear. The connecting waterway is a drainage ditch that goes through the propety, and connects to larger drains and ditches that connect directly to Lake St. Clair.
Scalia invokes "storm drains," "puddles," and "rain water"
to imply that all of this controversy involves trivial, ugly, brown
water.
Scalia, you dumbass. Depending on where you live, that "trivial brown water" is also known as "drinking water". And "swimming water". And "our water". Scalia (with John Roberts) pretend to be hydrologists for a minute and try to debate the "hydrological connection" between the wetlands and other waters with the Solicitor General, who is probably just as unqualified as Scalia and Robetrs on the topic.
We'll see how they rule, but if this is the quality of the intellects on the Court right now, all ladies should be feeling the grubby, ghostly hands of Antonin "Squirmy" Scalia measuring their uteruses right now for baby-makin'.
Ah, what does Scalia care? He probably drinks bottled water anyway.
(Thanks to Puzzle Girl for pointing me to Lithwick's coverage!)
