Judge: Navy not exempt from sonar ruling

[Gunny]

By ANDREW DALTON, Associated Press Writer
9 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES - The Navy must follow environmental laws placing strict limits on sonar training that opponents argue harms whales, despite President Bush's decision to exempt it, a federal judge ruled Monday.

The Navy is not "exempted from compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act" and a court injunction creating a 12 nautical-mile no-sonar zone off Southern California, U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper wrote in a 36-page decision.

"We disagree with the judge's decision," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "We believe the orders are legal and appropriate."

Navy spokeswoman Lt. Cmdr. Cindy Moore said the military was studying the decision.

The president signed a waiver Jan. 15 exempting the Navy and its anti-submarine warfare exercises from a preliminary injunction creating a 12 nautical-mile no-sonar zone off Southern California. The Navy's attorneys argued in court last week that he was within his legal rights.

Environmentalists have fought the use of sonar in court, saying it harms whales and other marine mammals.

"It's an excellent decision," said Joel Reynolds, attorney for the National Resources Defense Council, which is spearheading the legal fight. "It reinstates the proper balance between national security and environmental protection."

more ... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080205/ap_on_re_us/navy_sonar

How absolutely STUPID is this ruling? You have to wonder just what kind of retard it takes to put an entire nation's seaboard at risk because he's more worried about the fucking fish.

 

[Steerpike]

How absolutely STUPID is this ruling? You have to wonder just what kind of retard it takes to put an entire nation's seaboard at risk because he's more worried about the fucking fish.

Actually, the ruling is a good one, Gunny, but that doesn't mean the outcome is. Follow me on this for a sec

The Executive and Legislative are two separate but equal branches of government under the Constitution. The Legislative branch is tasked with passing laws (such as the environmental law here). I do not think the Executive has the power to just exempt itself from those laws. The judge is probably right that the President can't simply exempt a portion of its branch from a law duly passed by the Legislature.

Now, the outcome in this case is a bad one. But what should happen, instead of having some "activist" judge say "Oh, I've decided the Executive can exempt itself" is that the Congress should go back and amend the law, which is their job, to include the exemption.

That's the ideal, anyway.

 

[ReillyT]

How absolutely STUPID is this ruling? You have to wonder just what kind of retard it takes to put an entire nation's seaboard at risk because he's more worried about the fucking fish.

I haven't read the decision but you shouldn't be so quick to hammer the judge. It may be that the legislation doesn't provide for the President to exempt it whenever he wishes. Like I said, I haven't read it, but it is probably the way that the legislation is written that is to blame.

 

[ReillyT]

He beat me to it.

 

[Ninja]

How do they know it harms whales?

"Shamu, please tell the court the emotional suffering that sonar has wrought upon you."

"Well, I was heading up to Alaska to mate, and I ended up in the San Joaquin Delta..."

 

[Gunny]

Actually, the ruling is a good one, Gunny, but that doesn't mean the outcome is. Follow me on this for a sec

The Executive and Legislative are two separate but equal branches of government under the Constitution. The Legislative branch is tasked with passing laws (such as the environmental law here). I do not think the Executive has the power to just exempt itself from those laws. The judge is probably right that the President can't simply exempt a portion of its branch from a law duly passed by the Legislature.

Now, the outcome in this case is a bad one. But what should happen, instead of having some "activist" judge say "Oh, I've decided the Executive can exempt itself" is that the Congress should go back and amend the law, which is their job, to include the exemption.

That's the ideal, anyway.

The President has historically taken whatever measures necessary in the interest of national security. I'd say keeping foreign submarines from just tooling on up to the coastline would fall under that heading.

 

[Steerpike]

The President has historically taken whatever measures necessary in the interest of national security. I'd say keeping foreign submarines from just tooling on up to the coastline would fall under that heading.

I don't think we're dealing with the kind of exigent circumstances where we can't afford to wait for Congress to do the right thing. If we were in the middle of WWII I'd agree with you.

 

[Gunny]

How do they know it harms whales?

"Shamu, please tell the court the emotional suffering that sonar has wrought upon you."

"Well, I was heading up to Alaska to mate, and I ended up in the San Joaquin Delta..."

Now he just won't be able to navigate around all the subs with red stars on their conning towers.

 

[onedomino]

How absolutely STUPID is this ruling? You have to wonder just what kind of retard it takes to put an entire nation's seaboard at risk because he's more worried about the fucking fish.

What the hell? Who elected this person in charge of National Security?

What a brilliant ruling! Let's make her Admiral Cooper. I think her tactics of luring Russian, Chinese, and North Korean subs close to shore where they too will be sickened by her moonbattery should be a required case study at the Naval War College.

 

[onedomino]

I don't think we're dealing with the kind of exigent circumstances where we can't afford to wait for Congress to do the right thing. If we were in the middle of WWII I'd agree with you.

What a relief. For a moment, I thought the CIC and the US Navy knew what they were talking about. It's a good thing that we have naval intelligence analysts like you and Judge Cooper to make the military decisions about the defense of the West Coast. I feel much safer now.

 

[mattskramer]

I think that I may need to refresh my understanding of geography, but can’t the subs simply practice outside of the “no-sonar-zone”. All that they would need to do is go further out into the ocean. What’s the big deal – or is Bush on another ego trip acting as if the executive branch is above the law? Oh yes, if the navy needs something to bounce sonar off of, they can tie some ropes to some weighted barrels. Have you ever heard of compromise?

 

[Steerpike]

What a relief. For a moment, I thought the CIC and the US Navy knew what they were talking about. It's a good thing that we have naval intelligence analysts like you and Judge Cooper to make the military decisions about the defense of the West Coast. I feel much safer now.

I don't think the CIC or Navy claimed there were exigent circumstances.

You're a good example of how people on any side of an issue feel free to ignore the Constitution when it serves their particular purposes. I'm sure you criticize those you don't agree with for doing the same thing.

 

[onedomino]

I don't think the CIC or Navy claimed there were exigent circumstances.

You're a good example of how people on any side of an issue feel free to ignore the Constitution when it serves their particular purposes. I'm sure you criticize those you don't agree with for doing the same thing.

It is Cooper who has ignored the Constitution, since it gives her zero power to make National Security decisions from the bench. You are a good example of someone who does not know what they are talking about supporting a ruling that favors fish over the defense of the West Coast. Good call. It's why you and Judge Cooper are trusted defense advisors.

 

[Steerpike]

It is Cooper who has ignored the Constitution, since it gives her zero power to make National Security decisions from the bench. You are a good example of someone who does not know what they are talking about supporting a ruling that favors fish over the defense of the West Coast. Good call. It's why you and Judge Cooper are trusted defense advisors.

You have no clue what you're talking about. All she did was rule that the Bush administration didn't have the authority to do what it did.

You should read the Constitution for a change. Not only does it give the Legislative branch the authority to make laws (and no authority to the Executive to exempt itself) it specifically gives Congress the authority, in Article I, Section 8, "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

The exemption for the Navy needs to be made (and you'd know that was my opinion if you'd read my previous posts) but under the Constitution the Legislative branch needs to make it, not the Executive. So the military needs to go to Congress and get it changed.

 

[mattskramer]

It is Cooper who has ignored the Constitution, since it gives her zero power to make National Security decisions from the bench. You are a good example of someone who does not know what they are talking about supporting a ruling that favors fish over the defense of the West Coast. Good call. It's why you and Judge Cooper are trusted defense advisors.

This reminds me of when the Democrats complained that the US Supreme Court selected Bush to be president at the end of the 2000 election. I thought that Republicans favored proper procedure and the rule of law. So part of this case supposedly concerns national security. The rule of law should still apply regardless of what issue is before it. It looks like, in some situations, Republicans/Conservatives do want activist judges.

Do the means justify the ends or does the end justify the means?

 

[Steerpike]

This reminds me of when the Democrats complained that the US Supreme Court selected Bush to be president at the end of the 2000 election. I thought that Republicans favored proper procedure and the rule of law. So part of this case supposedly concerns national security. The rule of law should still apply regardless of what issue is before it. It looks like, in some situations, Republicans/Conservatives do want activist judges.

Do the means justify the ends or does the end justify the means?

You have people on both sides who don't really care what the Constitution or law says, they just want any particular issue to come out their way. This is a perfect example. Anyone who cares about the Constitution but still wants the exemption made (I fall into that category) wants to see the Congress put through the same exemption.

 

[onedomino]

You have no clue what you're talking about. All she did was rule that the Bush administration didn't have the authority to do what it did.

You should read the Constitution for a change. Not only does it give the Legislative branch the authority to make laws (and no authority to the Executive to exempt itself) it specifically gives Congress the authority, in Article I, Section 8, "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

The exemption for the Navy needs to be made (and you'd know that was my opinion if you'd read my previous posts) but under the Constitution the Legislative branch needs to make it, not the Executive. So the military needs to go to Congress and get it changed.

There is no constitutional authority granted the Judicial Branch to make decisions regarding National Security from the bench. Show us the Constitutional provision that allows judicial interference in matters of National Defense. In fact, the Constitution states that it is the President who is in charge of National Defense, not the Judiciary. "So the military needs to go to Congress and get it changed." Baloney. That's yours and Cooper opinion. And any common sense opinion would underline that it is absolutely not required that the Congress spell out an exemption for the military in matters of National Defense, such as preventing foreign submarines from driving into Los Angeles Harbor. Clearly it would be ludicrous to expect all possible exemptions to be authorized by law. The fact that this moonbat judge injects herself into the defense of the West Coast is absurd. Without sonar, how is the US Navy supposed to know where foreign subs are if they come inside the 12 mile limit? The answer is they won't, thanks to the brilliant tactical minds of people like you and Cooper. Once again, we appreciate people like you and Judge Cooper helping out with the defense of the West Coast. No doubt the commanders of foreign subs will think fondly of the insipid and meaningless technical legal argument you made if they decide to slip inside the 12 mile limit.

 

[Steerpike]

There is no constitutional authority granted the Judicial Branch to make decisions regarding National Security from the bench. Show us the Constitutional provision that allows judicial interference in matters of National Defense.

The judiciary makes the final decision regarding Constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches. That's been true since Marbury in what, 1803? It's not a Constitutionally-granted power. If you want to argue that there shouldn't be judicial review, then that's a separate argument. As long as there is, the judiciary is supposed to enforce the Constitution and that's what they're doing. You probably like all kinds of activists judges so long as they're ruling in your favor. I don't like them on either side of an issue.

 

[Shogun]

You have no clue what you're talking about. All she did was rule that the Bush administration didn't have the authority to do what it did.

You should read the Constitution for a change. Not only does it give the Legislative branch the authority to make laws (and no authority to the Executive to exempt itself) it specifically gives Congress the authority, in Article I, Section 8, "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

The exemption for the Navy needs to be made (and you'd know that was my opinion if you'd read my previous posts) but under the Constitution the Legislative branch needs to make it, not the Executive. So the military needs to go to Congress and get it changed.

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.

 

[onedomino]

The judiciary makes the final decision regarding Constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches. That's been true since Marbury in what, 1803? It's not a Constitutionally-granted power. If you want to argue that there shouldn't be judicial review, then that's a separate argument. As long as there is, the judiciary is supposed to enforce the Constitution and that's what they're doing. You probably like all kinds of activists judges so long as they're ruling in your favor. I don't like them on either side of an issue.

"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 Navy’s ability to evaluate and certify the Pacific Fleet’s 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.