The role the courts have assumed in our government is not in line with what the Founding Fathers envisioned. We were supposed to be governed by elected officials that we could hold accountable in elections–not by courts and unelected bureaucrats.<\/p>\n
On Sunday, Watts Up With That<\/a> posted an article about a recent 8-0 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.<\/p>\n The article reports:<\/p>\n In a rare but resounding act of judicial sanity, the Supreme Court of the United States has delivered an 8-0 ruling that reins in one of the most abused weapons in the bureaucratic arsenal: environmental obstructionism. The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County<\/a><\/em>, stemmed from a challenge to a planned railway in Utah, a project that environmentalists attempted to kneecap through endless litigation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In a time when green tape has been weaponized to stall or cancel everything from pipelines to housing, this decision marks a turning point\u2014and it\u2019s worth celebrating.<\/strong><\/p>\n Let\u2019s start with the heart of the ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that,<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cNEPA does not allow courts, \u2018under the guise of judicial review\u2019 of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/24pdf\/23-975_m648.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n Translation: judges can\u2019t play fortune teller and block infrastructure because of speculative \u201cripple effects\u201d on theoretical future projects. In other words, environmental lawfare just hit a serious snag.<\/strong><\/p>\n This case was triggered by the Surface Transportation Board\u2019s approval of an 88-mile railway to carry crude oil from Utah\u2019s Uinta Basin to the national rail network.<\/a> Eagle County, Colorado, and its usual cast of green litigators tried to stop the project, arguing that the environmental review should have considered other<\/em> hypothetical projects or downstream effects that may\u2014or may not\u2014result from this railway\u2019s existence.<\/strong><\/p>\n But the Court decisively said no. Agencies aren\u2019t expected to possess clairvoyant powers. As Kavanaugh clarified,<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThe fact that the project might foreseeably lead to the construction or increased use of a separate project does not mean the agency must consider that separate project\u2019s environmental effects\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n The article concludes:<\/p>\n For too long, infrastructure has been hostage to hypotheticals, paralyzed by process. This ruling loosens those chains. And that\u2019s a victory not just for Utah\u2019s railway, but for every American who still believes in building things.<\/strong><\/p>\n Here\u2019s to the rare sound of a gavel striking in favor of progress.<\/strong><\/p>\n Here’s to getting back to legislation passed by Congress and not regulations passed by bureaucrats.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The role the courts have assumed in our government is not in line with what the Founding Fathers envisioned. We were supposed to be governed by elected officials that we could hold accountable in elections–not by courts and unelected bureaucrats. … Continue reading