Court Makes Huge Move to Protect Americans From Obama’s Last Months
The Supreme Court has had a very mixed
record when it comes to standing up to President Barack Obama’s
overreaching agenda. In some cases, for example on the topics of
same-sex marriage and Obamacare, the Supreme Court has sided with Obama,
but at other times it has stood up to him and sided with the American
people.
The Hill reported that the Supreme Court
made a ruling regarding the latest case challenging Obama’s authority to
regulate America’s waterways. The justices unanimously ruled against
Obama.
The Supreme Court ruled that an American
landowner can file an appeal through the federal court system if the
Army Corps of Engineers rules that a body of water on that person’s land
is subject to federal jurisdiction.
This is a huge victory for private land
owners because it provides a very powerful check against Obama’s attempt
to regulate all of America’s waters, including — literally — drainage
ditches and seasonal ponds.
Were people not able to file appeals, the
government could simply declare all bodies of water federal territory
and take over almost all private land in America — something no one
wants to see happen. (Well, except Obama, apparently.)
New regulations expanding the waterways
covered under federal jurisdictions have been put on hold while it is
being fought out through the courts, and this case was seen as a sort of
test run for that.
This case was ultimately about private
property rights versus federal overreach. The court did the right thing
by siding with hard working Americans and not the bloated federal
government.
While this ruling won’t undo all of the
damage wrought by Obama’s actions over the past seven-plus years, it
does show that even the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court
aren’t going to let Obama continue to expand his power in the last few
months of his presidency.
Hopefully the next president will be a
Republican who will put another conservative justice on the court so we
can begin to undo all of Obama’s illegal executive orders.
0 comments: