Posted on 01/12/2015 10:42:48 PM PST by afraidfortherepublic
What they’re saying
• “The law prohibits us from making such fine utilitarian calculations to balance the smelt’s interests against the interests of the citizens of California. — Federal Judge Jay Bybee
• “These regulations have harmed farmers and farmworkers in the Central Valley ... by diverting vast quantities of water away from human use and out to the Pacific Ocean, all to try to improve the habitat of ... a 3-inch fish on the Endangered Species Act list. — James S. Burling, director of litigation for the Pacific Legal Foundation
The Supreme Court on Monday steered clear of a California whirlpool, letting stand a lower court’s decision that upheld federal rules protecting the Delta smelt.
The high court’s decision not to hear the high-profile California water case disappoints farmers, who have been challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over the smelt protections and the larger question of water flow through the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
But the court’s decision, issued without written explanation, is a big win for the Obama administration officials and environmental advocates who consider the tiny fish a key indicator of ecological health and an innocent victim, rather than instigator, of the state’s water woes.
“Today’s decision is good news for the thousands of fishermen, Delta farmers, and everyone who depends on the health of California’s Bay-Delta estuary and its native fisheries and wildlife,” Kate Poole, litigation director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s water program, declared Monday morning.
The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the Delta smelt case, and no oral arguments were heard.
Instead, the court simply denied two related petitions filed on behalf of farmers and water districts who sought review of a March 2014 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
(Excerpt) Read more at fresnobee.com ...
SCOTUS is AWOL
rotenone
Without water for their crops, farmers will have no use for the pesticides they’ve stockpiled. I wonder where they’ll dispose of them?
We should turn off the water at the court justices mansions. See how they like it.
Judicial elites strike a blow for minnow-Americans!
Environmentalists in Malibu cheer.
But don’t fear, farmers- while you will certainly lose your farms the justices will be just fine.
So there is nothing for you to worry about.
I’m sure the government will be there to collect that land. Offering pennies on the dollar because it just dry and unusable land now.
Land grab.
Or maybe the justices have some relatives who would like a rural retreat. After which the water will flow.
Problems Here.
The SCOTUS can intervene only when there is a dispute between states, or when a LAW passed by Congress is clearly Unconstitutional. Federal Agencies EPA etc, act under the purview of the Congress that funds them; SCOTUS can’t tell them to cease and desist, only Congress can do that.
This is why I didn’t see why everyone was so surprised by Robert’s ruling on Obamacare. The SCOTUS does not exist to protect us from BAD laws, it only exists to enforce the Constitution in cases that are brought before it; in whatever manner.
“The SCOTUS does not exist to protect us from BAD laws, it only exists to enforce the Constitution in cases that are brought before it; in whatever manner.”
If you have not figured out that SCOTUS has been making up the constitution as it goes along for the last 80 years (e.g. Wickard 1942, KELO 2005 etc.), why are you here?
It’s not judicial activism if it’s in your favor!
The slogan of the save the smelt people should be : “He Who Smelta, Delta.”
SCOTUS is owned by Obama with help from the nsa.
All part of Agenda 21?
How do they taste on a pizza?
Correct, with the big developers buying along the "high speed rail" corridor, ready to build their insta-cities. There is more land than they need for that, so best (for them) to get it off the tax rolls. Hell, the taxpayers are already building a UC campus to go with it.
You may not like what was done to Kelo, but the case was correctly. The result was that a good many States passed laws increasing protections for property owners, some to include regulatory and fractional takings. All will now get to witness the results of the differences in protection for private property among the States, which is how Federalism was supposed to work. So the actual result in total was not all bad.
The court rules on the law
The congress must judge the relative merits of farmers and food or a minnow.
People or bait........ the congress must decide and prevail
And we are supposed to “rely” on SCOTUS to “protect us” from the Obola administration’s illegal position on illegal aliens?
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.