Where is 1% of the American adult population?

[Jester]

"Evertson’s appeal brief sums up the absurdity of the whole case by quoting from a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in the year 2000: “To say that when something is saved it is thrown away is an extraordinary distortion of the English language.” Read more at the Washington Examiner:

Right-wing newspaper believes right-wing things. Editorials are not reporting.

Here is the site of the people who attempted to bring his appeal to the SCOTUS. Review was denied. "The Court’s one-sentence order did not explain the reasons for denying review. In its petition for certiorari, WLF argued that the lower courts misinterpreted RCRA and in essence denied the defendant the opportunity to demonstrate that he never abandoned the chemicals and thus that they were not “waste.”"

So, the SCOTUS didn't want to look at it. Not surprising, since they almost never look at anything that does not turn on a question of principle they are interested in examining.

However, the defendant would obviously endorse his own case, as would the right-wing 'legal foundation' behind him. There's no use citing their own brief as evidence that they're in the right. Every defendant looks good if you only look at that.

-Jester