I think that’s the root of the problem.
This case wasn’t about overturning a law, it was about reining in an unelected federal agency that had interpreted the law in a way that a plain reading doesn’t support.
If Congress had written the Clean Water Act in a way that authorized this position, we’d be having an entirely different conversation.
I volunteered for a wetlands conservation group for a decade. Only made possible by Bush 41's efforts to further codify and protect wetlands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_net_loss_wetlands_policy
The hubris of Alito et al to judge our best available science, despite having zero expertise, despite decades of policy, despite decades of scientific and methodology advances, is just bonkers.
Oh, sorry, they're just being textualists. A totally real, consistent, and in no way purely fabricated as needed case-by-case legal doctrine.
I can't wait to humor the SCOTUS' anti-textualism tortured rationalism next time they choose originalism, major doctrines, or an entirely new legal fiction to reach their predetermined outcome.
Probably next week.
Our Constitution's balance of powers was specifically designed to curtail that.
As a long time fan of democracy and loyal citizen of the USA, I'd rather have elected representation, for all their faults, rather than a cabal of reactionary corporatists with lifetime appointment and near zero accountability, calling the shots.
But opinions differ.
Some think monarchy is just terrific. Because 2400 years ago Plato blathered about mobs and tyrants and wokeness.