[ QUOTE ]
The thing you have to recognize is that just because a court is identified as liberal doesn't mean all or even most of its rulings are bent in that direction. In this case, there is clear Supreme Court precedent on the matter: wetlands and other bodies of water that do not affect or feed to navigable (i.e. interstate) waters are not subject to federal wetlands laws. The judiciary is frankly not very partisan and usually judges only fall on their personal or political beliefs for very close cases.
[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
The thing you have to recognize is that just because a court is identified as liberal doesn't mean all or even most of its rulings are bent in that direction. In this case, there is clear Supreme Court precedent on the matter: wetlands and other bodies of water that do not affect or feed to navigable (i.e. interstate) waters are not subject to federal wetlands laws.
[/ QUOTE ]
You've exposed my ignorance. I knew regulatory expansion of the definition of navigable waters had been an issue in the past, I did not know the supreme court had ruled against this in 2006. When I read the article, the result was a surprise to me. Now that I know the supreme court ruled recently, the 9th circuit respecting the precedent is not at all surprising.
[ QUOTE ]
The judiciary is frankly not very partisan and usually judges only fall on their personal or political beliefs for very close cases.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm naive enough to believe most federal judges attempt to follow the law and precedent.
However, today's supreme court justices start with the result they desire and work backwards to find the necessary "correct" legal interpretation. At least, that's what I took from the fascinating book
"Closed Chambers".