Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court lets stand delta smelt protection, dealing blow to farmers
The Fresno Bee ^ | 1-12-15 | Michael Boyle

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; agriculture; bybee; conservation; delta; lawsuit; scotus; smelt; water
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last
To: afraidfortherepublic

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?


21 posted on 01/13/2015 7:30:15 AM PST by reed13k (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

Great point


22 posted on 01/13/2015 9:04:13 AM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bakeneko

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??


23 posted on 01/13/2015 9:05:15 AM PST by i_robot73 (Give me one example and I will show where gov't is the root of the problem(s).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

It makes ya wonder..

Who’s got more cranial capacity?

A tiny fish .. or a panel of idiots.


24 posted on 01/13/2015 9:38:47 AM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi - Revolution is a'brewin!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Hell, the taxpayers are already building a UC campus to go with it.

They should name it Smelt U or UC LongFin


25 posted on 01/13/2015 9:40:14 AM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi - Revolution is a'brewin!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Who’s got more cranial capacity?
A tiny fish .. or a panel of idiots.

Brilliant! I nominate your comment as "Post of the Day".

26 posted on 01/13/2015 9:43:37 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bakeneko
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.

So that's why we got Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

27 posted on 01/13/2015 10:04:24 AM PST by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
"You may not like what was done to Kelo, but the case was correctly."

KELO interpretation of the 5th Amendment "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

You can't/don't read and neither can/do they.
28 posted on 01/14/2015 9:45:32 AM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (ISLAM DELENDA EST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
KELO interpretation of the 5th Amendment "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Which only applied to the Federal government, that is, unless you believe the 14th Amendment was to dispose of that, and therefore Federalism.

I suggest you read up on the topic a bit.

29 posted on 01/14/2015 10:54:09 AM PST by Carry_Okie (Those who profess noblesse oblige regress to droit du seigneur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
You can't/don't read and neither can/do they.

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.

30 posted on 01/14/2015 11:27:47 AM PST by Carry_Okie (Those who profess noblesse oblige regress to droit du seigneur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

SCOTUS does, when it’s convenient.


31 posted on 01/14/2015 4:54:20 PM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (ISLAM DELENDA EST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

You beat me by 2 years, and only because I lost my previous ID info in a computer crash.


32 posted on 01/14/2015 4:56:52 PM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (ISLAM DELENDA EST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
SCOTUS does, when it’s convenient.

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.

33 posted on 01/14/2015 5:35:50 PM PST by Carry_Okie (Those who profess noblesse oblige regress to droit du seigneur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

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?


34 posted on 01/14/2015 6:45:37 PM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (ISLAM DELENDA EST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
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”

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.

35 posted on 01/15/2015 7:23:25 AM PST by Carry_Okie (Those who profess noblesse oblige regress to droit du seigneur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Bump!


36 posted on 01/15/2015 7:25:46 AM PST by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political parties in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson