Posted on 11/12/2008 7:29:52 AM PST by NinoFan
The Supreme Court, dividing deeply, upheld the Navy’s power to use sonar in military training exercises, even though the technology threatens marine life in the training zone off the Pacific Coast. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., wrote for the majority; there were three full dissents and one partial dissent. The decision, the Court’s first ruling of the Term, came in the case of Winter (Navy Secretary) v. National Resources Defense Council, et al. (07-1239).
The Court partially overturned a federal judge’s order against the use of the active sonar at least until the Navy took additional measures to mitigate the threat to whales, dolphines and other marine mammals. Those added measures would have required the Navy to stop its sonar exercises when the threat to mammals was deemed imminent. The ruling set aside the District Court injunction to the extent challenged by the Navy.
Roberts wrote that “the Navy’s need to conduct realistic training with active sonar to respond to the threat posed by enemy submarines plainly outweighs” the environmental concerns raised by advocacy groups.
I understood McCain’s objection about losing the filibuster a few year’s back, and I disagreed with him on the Constitution. I still do. The wording of the Constitution specifically spells out the process of approving presidential nominees. Although the Senate does have the authority to establish its own rules, it doesn’t seem to me that they have the power to use those rules to derail a specified Constitutional process.
Would I have to take the good with the bad in that case? Yes, and I said so at the time.
Nonetheless, since they chose to preserve the filibuster, and no one has challenged it, then I’m willing to play by the current rules. I don’t think, however, that Republicans will filibuster dem judicial appointments.
>Roberts wrote that “the Navy’s need to conduct realistic training with active sonar to respond to the threat posed by enemy submarines plainly outweighs” the environmental concerns raised by advocacy groups.
And he is correct. He should also note that these so-called “advocacy groups” advocate the destruction of America.
They can leave anytime...if another country will have them.
Having already read it, It seems like a pretty strong win for national defense. Considering the importance of these exercises, an injunction is about as bad as you can get.
Also:
“At the same time, what we have said makes clear that it
would be an abuse of discretion to enter a permanent
injunction, after final decision on the merits, along the
same lines as the preliminary injunction. An injunction is
a matter of equitable discretion; it does not follow from
success on the merits as a matter of course. “
Did they sue the Russians and Chinese too? Their subs use sonor. To kill ours!
Those 4 were convinced before the trial
The court did not deal with the merits of the claims put forward by the environmental groups. It said, rather, that federal courts abused their discretion by ordering the Navy to limit sonar use in some cases and to turn it off altogether in others.
I want to know the number to call our government to get a bailout as well. It is INSANE!
Thank god for Roberts and Alito, at least they’ll be there for a while.
I still can’t believe Stevens made it from 80 to 88 under Bush and is still there. What were the actuarial odds in 2000 of both Stevens and Ginsburg still being here in 2008? Just bad luck, I guess. If Bush could have replaced Stevens this loss would have been a lot easier. We were so close to taking the court back fir a generation, overturning Roe and other bad decisions, and now...not so much
we should all pray pray Scalia and Kennedy stay on through 2012. They’re both 72 now not exactly spring chickens. Scalia especially doesn’t appear to getting any thinner.
If Obama replaces one of the liberals that’s bad enough but it doesn’t really change the balance on the court. If he gets to replace Scalia and/or Kennedy, Conservatives will never win an important SC case for at least another 10 years.
Looking back, one of the ture blesings of luck we had was that no SC justices left under Carter, and Reagan and Bush had 6 appointments. Can you imagine if 2 or Justices had stepped down and been replaced by Carter???
Hopefully Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas can hold on for 4 years
If Obama gets in there, I’m sure he’ll appoint justices who don’t care one bit about this nation’s defense. It wouldn’t surprise me if they’re as extreme as Justice Douglas who tried to stop the Vietnam War.
Chinese and Russian technology threaten human life. Gee, thanks for actually letting us defend it
/s
Even with 2 Obama appointments, the decision would still be 5-4. That's the good news. The bad news is he gets to renew the 2 Marxists on the Court for perhaps another 30 years.
2 max.
Assuming Scalia stays in good health
...cute, cuddly animals.
Precisely.
What is unsaid is that everyone involved (save for community organizees) must know (or reasonably suspect) that this has NOTHING to do with whales and EVERYTHING to do with attempting to weaken the defense and military of the U. S.
Stevens and Ginsberg for age & health reasons.
Breyer is a 71 year old Clinton appointee. I have no reason to question his health or fitness, but the opportunity to step down with a liberal doing the appointing and a huge dem majority in the Senate might be very attractive to him and his party.
If they could get 3 40-something liberals on the bench, they’d lock down 3 liberal seats for decades. It would be tempting for the libs to have a “come to Jesus meeting” with Justice Breyer.
Of course, if the court had gone the other way, or if a future Congress passes a law to protect the whales, guess where the Navy will do its sonar thing?
I would love to see Scalia have the same attitude regarding President Obama.
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.