Supreme Court appeared evenly split Monday over a potential habitat for an endangered frog ...............
Posted on 10/02/2018 7:09:39 AM PDT by SMGFan
WASHINGTON- With Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination in limbo, a shorthanded Supreme Court appeared evenly split Monday over a potential habitat for an endangered frog in the first arguments of the new term.
The arguments and the appearance of the eight justices on the bench – an empty place on the far right where a ninth would sit – underscored the unusual environment in which the high court began its new term.
Republicans had hoped to have Kavanaugh confirmed in time for Monday’s session, an addition that would cement conservative control of the court. But the vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination has been delayed while the FBI investigates allegations against him of sexual misconduct.
(Excerpt) Read more at rep-am.com ...
Supreme Court appeared evenly split Monday over a potential habitat for an endangered frog ...............
If the Court is split evenly, doesn’t the case refer back to the Lower Court’s decision? Is there anything IMPORTANT that will be on the docket soon? I know they want to block him completely, but am curious if there is any specific case they want referred to the Lower Court’s decision.
That’s FFFFFFlake!
this entire practice was cataloged beginning in the 80's.
Prof's had student work grids to ID "unique species" across the country.
With the specific intent of prohibiting development anywhere they wanted.
Argument calendars can be found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars.aspx
“a shorthanded Supreme Court appeared evenly split Monday over a potential habitat for an endangered frog in the first arguments of the new term.”
Are the frogs “GAY”?
There likely won’t be a decision on the case for weeks. Misleading headline.
Court watchers predict the split based on the questions the justices ask. Court watchers are frequently wrong.
We need an expert to best discuss these cases.
Just went and read it. They are locking up 1500 Acres of private property that has neither the Habitat for the Frogs or any of these Frogs.
17-71 WEYERHAUSER COMPANY V. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
DECISION BELOW: 827 F.3d 452
CERT. GRANTED 1/22/2018
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act to conserve “ecosystems upon which
endangered species***depend.” 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b). To that end, the Act requires the
Secretary of the Interior to “designate any habitat of such species which is then considered to
be critical habitat.”
Id.
§ 1533(a)(3)(A). “Critical habitat” may include areas “occupied by the
species,” as well as “areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species” that are
determined to be “essential for the conservation of the species.”
Id.
§ 1532(5)(A).
The Fish and Wildlife Service designated as critical habitat of the endangered dusky
gopher frog a 1500- acre tract of private land that concededly contains no dusky gopher frogs
and cannot provide habitat for them absent a radical change in land use because it lacks
features necessary for their survival. The Service concluded that this designation could cost $34
million in lost development value of the tract. But it found that this cost is not disproportionate
to “biological” benefits of designation and so refused to exclude the tract from designation
under 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(2).
A divided Fifth Circuit panel upheld the designation. The questions presented, which six
judges of the court of appeals and fifteen States urged warrant further review because of their
great importance, are:
1. Whether the Endangered Species Act prohibits designation of private land as unoccupied
critical habitat that is neither habitat nor essential to species conservation.
2. Whether an agency decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat because of the
economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review.
Thank you!
… an empty place on the far right where a ninth would sit …Interesting choice of words.
The “empty chair” position also represents that the “new guy” isn’t there to get the coffee (or beer) for the other justices.
As an example, the famous Colorado Masterpiece Bakeshop case was argued in December 2017 and the USSC opinion was issued in June of this year, six months later.
As an example, the famous Colorado Masterpiece Bakeshop case was argued in December 2017 and the USSC opinion was issued in June of this year, six months later.
It is such a relief America has no problems greater than a frog’s habitat.
They need Kavanaugh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.