http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-warrants-needed-in-gps-tracking/2012/01/23/gIQAx7qGLQ_story.html

Another Unaminous decision

This one tells the Government no warrantless GPS tracking of individuals.

primo is a gay

EPA ruling is huge, like citizens united, and I think it indicates Obamacare is going DOWN this summer

For you foriegners

US fed govt  has 3 branches, judiciary (courts) ,  executive (Pres & Bureaucracy) and legislative (Congress)

Only Congress can make law, except, Congress is totally lazy and creates Enabling Acts.
For instance, a Love Outweighs Venomous Evil Act (LOVE Act, get it get it hahaha)  "We want love, and the National Love Agency (executive branch) shall have authority to regulate love"

Then the NLA can propose Love regulations which are pending for six months, and then are written in the Federal Register of Regulations and everybody has to obey them as authorized by the Congress with the LOVE Act

This worked okay for 100 years I guess, until total jerks got into the Civil Service, so now for instance the DOJ says "oh gee we're gonna kill Americans if the President thinks they are guilty"  and people said "Ummm after trial right" and the DOJ said "oh hell no, Congress wrote the PATRIOT Act so to enforce that we just need to be able to issue death warrants"

See the way it is now, bureaucrats can invent law, and it takes 1/2 the House and 2/3 the Senate and the President (or 2/3 the House and 2/3 the Senate without the President) to slam down the President's subordinates.

And our courts, to cut down on their workload, have a very basic rule : You can't sue a federal agency, until you "exhaust administrative remedies" to get your result.  That is, if the Love agency says you can't date your gf, you have to jump through the 5 hoops of review within the Love Agency and get rejected, before you can ask a federal court to tell them to go pound sand.  (or to avoid being killed by Hellfire missles I guess you could appeal the DOJ decision that you're Al Qaeda, within the DOJ, except they won't tell you in advance that you're considered a target for drone strike and the drones don't miss very often)

So in this instant case, the EPA decided it was going to tell a homeowner they had to tear down their new house and tear up their new landscaping and restore the meadow to its pristine condition, because the EPA said it was protected wetlands.

The owners said "But you never said it was wetlands before."  EPA said "We made up a rule that we don't have to tell you in advance whether its a wetland".

Owners said "OK we want to appeal the decision its a wetland."  EPA said "Actually we haven't decided it's wetland.  We're still thinking about making a decision.  But while we wait, why don't you tear down your house and restore the meadow cause we think its wetlands."

Owners said "wait if you haven't said its wetlands why are we arguing"  and the EPA said "well it isn't torn down and it isn't a meadow and that's for sure.  In fact if you don't make it into a meadow again, at your cost, then you're fined $70,000.00 a day from yesterday every day you don't."

Owners said "OK we're going to appeal your decision" and the EPA said, and they repeated this in the Supreme Court, "Just cause we wrote you a letter saying you owe us $70,000.00 a day for not doing what we said, doesn't mean we decided anything.  We want you to do what we said.  But, you can't sue to overturn a EPA decision cause we haven't made one.  You don't even get a EPA hearing because we're still investigating.  But, we want you to know that we're going to run a tally and every day you don't restore the meadow that tally will grow by $70,000.00 and IF we decide it's wetlands we're going to take that tally and fine you that amount, and THEN we're going to attach it to all your property as a lien and start grabbing bank accounts and your land and everything else.  IF we find out it's a wetland.  By the way you owe us $280,000.00.  How about restoring it to a meadow."

Owners said "How can you fine us without hearing, how can you decide that without a ruling whether it's a wetland"  and EPA said "HEY Congress passed the Environmental Protection Act, and we wrote regulations saying we can operate this way, and that'll do for you bitch"

Owners said "OK OK OK we can take you to Supreme Court for THAT decision"  and the Supreme Court said 9-0 "ey jackass, when you write to say they gotta do a thing or pay $70,000 that's appealable decision"

so that is where Obamacare is in trouble, because it is FULL of nothing but "The executive branch will decide this or that or the other" and now EVERY DECISION of the Secretary can be sued.  Even the decision that an American owes anything for the mandate can be a lawsuit.