Democrats Rage After Supreme Court Delivers 9-0 Ruling


OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling narrowing the federal government’s authority to regulate bodies of water, a decision that is devasting to President Joe Biden and Democrats.

The high court’s unanimous 9-0 decision rejected the Environmental Protection Agency’s broad definition of Waters of the United States — delivering bad news to Biden’s radical climate agenda.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reverses a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which sided with the EPA, CBS News reported.

“The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear,” Alito wrote. “Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by E.P.A. employees as wetlands covered by the act, and according to the federal government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy.”

Democrats have come out against the ruling in full force, blasting “MAGA” effort to pollute waters and wetlands.

“This MAGA Supreme Court is continuing to erode our country’s environmental laws,” proclaimed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. “This ruling will mean more polluted water and more destruction of wetlands.” Rep. Ro Khanna (D., Calif.), meanwhile, said that “the Supreme Court is hurting public health,” asking, “How many Americans would be against clean water?”


The liberal Washington Post did not mention the ruling was unanimous and framed it as being “close,” which is not the case given all 9 of the justices agreed. The outlet called the decision “another setback” in the fight against “air and water pollution.”

California Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna said that “the Supreme Court is hurting public health,” asking, “How many Americans would be against clean water?”

Maryland Democrat Rep. Steny H. Hoyer slammed the ruling, saying the justices were playing the roles of lawmakers, not interpreters of the law.

“The Court appoints itself — instead of Congress or the expert agency — the decision-maker on climate policy,” Hoyer said. “That is not how our system of checks and balances works,” he said, adding the Senate should “act on legislation to address the existential threat posed by the climate crisis, including House-passed measures to lower Americans’ energy costs and secure a clean energy future.”

A big announcement came down last week in a separate case that could upend future elections.

The Supreme Court is considering an election case involving North Carolina that will have a major impact on the 2024 election regardless of how the court rules.


The case revolves around a constitutional concept known as the “independent state legislature theory.” Backers argue that state legislatures possess considerable authority in the administration of federal elections within their respective states, with limited oversight from state courts or even governors.

The high court is currently deliberating on the case of Moore v. Harper, which specifically addresses the theory. However, there are concerns the court may not reach a comprehensive resolution on the matter in time for the upcoming 2024 elections.

The Washington Examiner reports:

Moore v. Harper features a dispute over North Carolina’s Supreme Court dismissing a GOP-backed apportionment plan for being too partisan.


Republicans filed a challenge to the high court, but then conservatives managed to regain control of the state Supreme Court. The now-5-2 Republican-majority court subsequently opted to rehear the redistricting case. The court scraped its prior ruling late last month, which was the underpinning of the Moore v. Harper case pending before the Supreme Court.

“Should the high court fail to weigh in on the issue, state legislatures may feel emboldened to have free reign with gerrymandering, election integrity laws, and more, likely drawing major legal challenges,” the Examiner noted further.

Supporters of the independent legislature theory say that it’s based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution’s elections clause: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”

Send this to a friend