[Carry_Okie]

NEPA may be explicit, but when its prescriptions demonstrably violate its stated purpose, and when there are provisions for exceptions such as the Bush Administration has taken, then the question becomes one of how the law is applied, not whether one can cite provisions that support one's position.

In this instance, the application is an administrative function, in which the court has no business in the first place UNLESS it is demonstrated that the consequences have been systematically reckless, which they have not.

[backtothestreets]

Being no expert on NEPA, I am admittedly not an authority on the law, nor the intent. I am only saying that when the two judges that ruled against the Bush Administration position are presumably conservative Republican judges, the fault may rest with the law and not the judges.