This is a big deal for folks here on the west side of the state.  If you're not in the area I don't know what sort of sense you get about just how big a deal it is but it's stirred a lot of passionate debate.  

You've got the radical environmentalists running around hugging trees and opposing the operation with junk science, claiming that the company is destroying the environment and draining aquifers.  Nestle argues there's no damage being done and that something called the "water cycle" does indeed exist.  

But whatever the current state of underground water in Stanwood the case shows some troubling facts about a few members of the state's high court, specifically Justice Elizabeth Weaver.  

The Detroit News reports:

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elizabeth Weaver said the state's environmental laws were intended to allow broad challenges to potential hazards wherever they may exist. That is no longer the case, she wrote.

See the problem?  Did you catch it?  

The Justice dissented from the majority opinion because she was reading the "intention" of laws.  Not the laws on the books.  Not legal statute or precedence.  Intention.  And what do we call it when men and women in black robes ignore the laws in front of them and try to read intention?  That's right, judicial activism.  Legislating from the bench.  

A judge isn't afforded the luxury of imagining lawmakers' frame of mind when drafting legislation.  Try to read the laws, not minds.  Please.

Reading minds is a tough business.  Though it's getting less difficult with the House Democrats.  They still intend on raising taxes on moms and dads across the state.  Take, for example, their actions yesterday.  The Associated Press reports that Dillon's Democrats moved a couple more budgets including a DNR package that assumes the state will be taking in a lot more cash than we are currently.

But are they acting on that budget hole?  Are they doing anything to fix the mess?

Lawmakers have not decided on the mix of possible tax increases, spending cuts and changes in government structure aimed at erasing a potential $1.6 billion hole in next fiscal year's budget.

Democrats in the House are passing bills based on additional money being available.

The Department of Natural Resources budget assumes that lawmakers eventually will approve an increase in the cost of hunting and fishing licenses, although that has not yet happened.
The overall DNR budget would increase by about 10 percent compared to the current fiscal year.

And now we get another piece of the puzzle.  Cigarettes, alcohol, income, services, tickets to events and shows and now hunting and fishing licenses.  The hit parade just keeps on rolling.

But if they're that confident that the money will be there, and if even the vulnerable freshman Dems in the House are going ahead and voting to increase government spending in the face of a $1.19 billion budget deficit, one could assume they'll actually get something done and vote on those new revenues.  Of course one would be wrong, but one could assume.