Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Looks like Steerpike nailed it on the head by posting EVIDENCE. I'm waiting for onedomino to provide evidence beyond talking shit on liberals to support his OPINION.
"You probably like all kinds of activist judges..." You know absolutely nothing about me and you make a preposterous statement like that? How insightful. You recently join this board, and when I have never commented about any judges previously whatsoever, you announce what my opinion is regarding activist judges? Obviously your clairvoyance extends to the movement of foreign submarines, since in your expert opinion a legal technicality (if it even exists) takes prescience over the defense of the West Coast. The Judiciary in this case is stepping on the Constitution, since it is given zero power in matters of National Security. It is using a specious technicality to inject itself into matters of National Security on behalf of fish; when in fact the Navy has used sonar off the West Coast for decades. There is no way that all legal exemptions could possibly be stipulated and you know that very well. For Cooper and you to insist that this be stipulated and in the meantime to hell with the defense of Los Angeles Harbor is completely disingenuous. What is the real agenda? Fish? Anti-Administration? Anti-Military? Pro Foreign Submarines? Just For The Moonbat Hell Of It? The Sanctity of Legal Technicalities? Where's the Congressional stipulations that the Navy can use sonar off the coast of Oregon? Off Washington? Near the Puget Sound Naval Base? Near Pearl Harbor? Near Guam? With 12 miles of Islands in the Bearing Sea? There are none. So why is there a requirement off of San Diego? "Her injunction compromises the Navys ability to evaluate and certify the Pacific Fleets strike groups as properly prepared to hunt for quiet diesel electric submarines in active military operations off the coast of Asia and in waters near Iraq and Afghanistan," the Justice Department lawyer, Allen M. Brabender, wrote. http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=9205 But no, a legal technicality that suits a fish agenda was more important than that. And by the way, Steerpike, stick your guesses as to the probability of my attitudes on topics for which you have no basis other than your own delusional prejudice to assert.
Obviously your clairvoyance extends to the movement of foreign submarines, since in your expert opinion a legal technicality (if it even exists) takes prescience over the defense of the West Coast.
It is using a specious technicality to inject itself into matters of National Security on behalf of fish.
The Sanctity of Legal Technicalities?
But no, a legal technicality that suits a fish agenda was more important than that.
You did not even address my post. Talk about nothing.He's got nothing (see post above). Doesn't actually address any of the specific Constitutional arguments I made, nor, I suspect, did he even read my entire post. Oh well, maybe Gunny will come back. At least he's susceptible to reason, even if we disagree.
You did not even address my post. Talk about nothing.
Who needs a clue? You are yet another Constitutional Law expert who supports the Doctrine of Legal Technicalities that compromises National Security and the training of naval personal? Welcome to the debate. Again where are the exemptions and legal codifications for the areas I mentioned above? The answer is that are none because it is nonsensical. Are the waters off of California more sensitive to sonar than Oregon? Does the naval base in San Diego need less protection than Bremerton? We have a Judge who has injected herself into the National Security decisions of the CIC and the US Navy regarding the defense of the West Coast and what constitutes the appropriate technical training of naval personal. That is over-the-top absurd. Who in California wants environmental lawsuits to decide defense policy? No appointed judge should make defense policy from the bench. Thereby disregarding the CIC elected by the people to make such policy and judgments. Doing so is an abuse of authority and an perversion of the Separation of Powers that certainly was not intended. Do you suppose that when the Constitution was written the Separation of Powers was in part created so that judges could define military policy, tactics, and training from the bench? I rather doubt it. Meanwhile, as lawyers and judges pointlessly screw around satisfying the legal technicality imposed by military defense expert Judge Cooper on the CIC and the Navy, then there is no sonar within 12 miles of the US, and no training against quiet diesel electric submarines. If the demand for legally codified exemption imposed by Cooper is important or valid, where are the demands from Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, and the rest? The training is close to the shore for a purpose. It is not simply a case of moving further from shore. Do you suppose that everyone has agreed that all combat of that type will take place in deep water outside the 12 mile limit? Did all diesel electric sub commanders agree to never attack harbors? Did I miss the treaty where all nations have agreed that diesel electric submarines in combat will stay outside the 12 mile limit?The doctrine of separation of powers is not a legal technicality. There is no all encompassing national security exemption to the myriad of laws passed by Congress. Get a clue.
Who needs a clue? You are yet another Constitutional Law expert who supports the Doctrine of Legal Technicalities that compromises National Security and the training of naval personal? Welcome to the debate. Again where are the exemptions and legal codifications for the areas I mentioned above? The answer is that are none because it is nonsensical. Are the waters off of California more sensitive to sonar than Oregon? Does the naval base in San Diego need less protection than Bremerton? We have a Judge who has injected herself into the National Security decisions of the CIC and the US Navy regarding the defense of the West Coast and what constitutes the appropriate technical training of naval personal. That is over-the-top absurd. Who in California wants environmental lawsuits to decide defense policy? No appointed judge should make defense policy from the bench. Thereby disregarding the CIC elected by the people to make such policy and judgments. Doing so is an abuse of authority and an perversion of the Separation of Powers that certainly was not intended. Do you suppose that when the Constitution was written the Separation of Powers was in part created so that judges could define military policy, tactics, and training from the bench? I rather doubt it. Meanwhile, as lawyers and judges pointlessly screw around satisfying the legal technicality imposed by military defense expert Judge Cooper on the CIC and the Navy, then there is no sonar within 12 miles of the US, and no training against quiet diesel electric submarines. If the demand for legally codified exemption imposed by Cooper is important or valid, where are the demands from Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, and the rest? The training is close to the shore for a purpose. It is not simply a case of moving further from shore. Do you suppose that everyone has agreed that all combat of that type will take place in deep water outside the 12 mile limit? Did all diesel electric sub commanders agree to never attack harbors? Did I miss the treaty where all nations have agreed that diesel electric submarines in combat will stay outside the 12 mile limit?
Pointless? Explain why objecting to making defense policy from the bench is pointless. Why is it pointless to object to a Judge who knows zero about defense policy dictating the tactics and training of the military? Why is it pointless to object to environmental lawsuits about fish defining defense policy? Why is it pointless to ask why there are no Judical demands for changes in the law for Oregon, Washington, etc. I would say your response was rather pointless, since you could not be bothered to respond.Sorry. I tried to read your post but it was long and meandering and pointless. I was going to try to respond to something, but neither your post nor you are really worth that much effort.
Yes, I am a lawyer. "Constitutional law expert" might be a tad strong though.
