[Carry_Okie]

I said that this was going to happen when Judge Hogan's decision came out. There will be more. If they don't overturn it all, they will simply erode it. Earthjustice has VERY deep pockets. Here is what I cited from my book on this thread as the reason for their legal power and how to mount a proper response. Frankly, I am rather disgusted, because I got but one response.

If you will note, George, that post states how to solve the problem of "standing."

[farmfriend]

As akways, I hear you. Got my e-mail fixed and sent the problem on. Thanks agian.

[marsh2]

Treaty provsions do not stand as authority unless they are self-executing. In this case, the treaty requires laws to be made to implement it. Those laws have no special standing and can be overidden by more current law under the guise that it represents the current will of Congress.

Not-with-standing the Hague and the WTO, there is no body that enforces Treaties between sovereign nations. War and diplomacy are supposed to be the tools of international agreements. Although the SCOTUS interprets law to be in conformance with treaty provisions, those are ususally self-executing ones, such as granting privileges to non-US citizens on par with citizens rights.

Unless the law or regulation states that the purpose is to protect species in their natural habitat, then the Court will not enforce same.

On standing, the ESA specifically recognizes environmental groups as having standing. Bennett v. Spear was a SCOTUS case where a Klamath Basin rancher was DENIED standing on the basis that his economic interest wasn't sufficient to establish standing. He needed to represent the environment to sue. (The denial was shot down and the rancher recognized.)