Read on Twitter
The idea that the Clean Water Act doesn’t extend to wetlands, which is what the Supreme Court—not a single scientist among them—decided today, is like saying there’s no connection between air pollution and the atmosphere. It makes no goddamn sense but it doesn’t need to 🧵
The Sacketts, the wealthy couple behind this case, were selected as plaintiffs by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a dark $ funded “public interest” law org that’s been bringing cases intended to expand rights for polluting industries while also weakening civil rights, for decades.
The Sacketts have been serial plaintiffs on this issue alone. Why? Because the Pacific Legal Foundation and it’s corporate backers want to gut the Clean Water Act (also the Clean Air Act and they’d like the EPA to go away entirely).
There are MANY ridiculous aspects to this case but for my money the top of the list is the Sacketts’ are arguing that they shouldn’t be required to get a permit to develop on wetlands…even though they would have gotten the permit easily had they applied.
This is not about protecting “pristine wilderness” over human development. Any scientist will tell you that you cannot protect water quality downstream (which everyone agrees the Clean Water Act protects) without protecting smaller rivers, streams & watersheds upstream
A LOT of polluting industries would like to fill in wetlands & pollute that were protected by the Clean Water Act. Those industries are the real plaintiffs in this case. More on this and other climate/environment cases to watch this #SCOTUS session: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dri…
*so many typos and grammatical errors because I’m fucking annoyed!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
