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 ...
Looks yummy, but didn’t I hear that these aren’t even native to the region but were brought in at some point in the last century? If so how can they even be considered endangered instead of just non-native, unadaptive?
Great point
Clearly unconstitutional? you mean in the way that, by Fed. pixie dust, the authority to write regulations, with the force of Law, were allowed to spring up w/out the input, nor authorization of We the People, by Amendment? That clearly??
It makes ya wonder..
Who’s got more cranial capacity?
A tiny fish .. or a panel of idiots.
Hell, the taxpayers are already building a UC campus to go with it.
—
They should name it Smelt U or UC LongFin
Brilliant! I nominate your comment as "Post of the Day".
So that's why we got Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
Which only applied to the Federal government, that is, unless you believe the 14th Amendment was to dispose of that, and therefore Federalism.
BTW, for you to believe that a FReeper who's been here for fifteen years is neither familiar with the Kelo case nor aware of the Fifth Amendment is so STUPID that a condescending post of this sort should get you banned. That article to which I referred you about the Kelo case was written by me and published at the Price of Liberty website in 2005 and posted as a thread here as well. It was well received here too. So if you think yourself so well-informed that you can't read it, stick it.
SCOTUS does, when it’s convenient.
You beat me by 2 years, and only because I lost my previous ID info in a computer crash.
That's not an answer to the point of my original post.
Kelo's property was taken by a State. State sponsored takings upon behalf of even private corporations such as railroads and barge companies were commonplace throughout the 19th Century. There is ample precedent for what happened to Kelo as a State prerogative.
Hence, Kelo, although an injustice and an abomination against private property rights, was correctly decided according to the original Constitution. If you think that unconstitutional because you want the Fifth Amendment fully incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, then you don't believe in Constitutionally limited and enumerated powers or Federalism.
IOW, don't have a reading problem. You clearly do.
I expect consistency. Inconsistency is never justice.
IF the 5th A. is incorporated under the 14th A., that is hardly the end of federalism but an example of “guaranteeing to the states a republican form of government” (Art.IV S.4), especially in the post-Civil War era. The 13th-15th Amendments do not mean that we have no individual rights other than not to be slaves.
I suppose that according to you, the states may take individual’s property without “just compensation” or indeed any compensation at all if a democratic majority wills it? Then what are we but slaves? But if you believe that the people have any of the individual rights expressed in the Bill of Rights (speech, religion etc.), then how do you and SCOTUS justify the inconsistency of picking and choosing?
Nonsense. You have just stated a contradiction in terms. A "republic" describes the distribution of power and authority. Rome had a republic, but never a word was said about unalienable rights. Protection for property rights has nothing whatever to do with the structure of government and the distribution of powers.
Strike one, and it was a whiffer.
The 13th-15th Amendments do not mean that we have no individual rights other than not to be slaves.
LOL, you still haven't read the article, thus displaying your ignorance. Beyond the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which had already done for slaves what you describe, the true purpose of the 14th, according to one of its authors, was to empower corporations with the protections due to citizens.
Called strike two.
I suppose that according to you, the states may take individual’s property without “just compensation” or indeed any compensation at all if a democratic majority wills it?
Strike three, low and outside.
I was describing the history in precedent. The mercantilist practice I described existed and was common. You just don't like it. Neither do I.
All of your foolishness could have been avoided had you read that article. Nor have you repented of your claim that I can't read. Until you do, we're done.
Bump!
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.