CA: Appeals court overturns Forest Service logging rule (9th Circus)

AP on Bakersfield Californian ^ | 12/5/07 | AP

[NormsRevenge]

A federal appeals court has ruled the U.S. Forest Service violated federal law when it allowed logging projects without analyzing their effects on the environment.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with environmentalists who challenged a Bush administration rule that exempted certain timber sales and prescribed forest burns from environmental analysis.

The Wednesday decision by the San Francisco-based court overturns a lower court ruling that favored the administration.

The Sierra Club and Sierra Forest Legacy sued in 2004 challenging the Forest Service rule, which has been a key component of the Bush administration's "Healthy Forests Initiative."

[ElkGroveDan]

Gang green ping.

[NonValueAdded]

No more prescribed burns for the forests within the boundaries of the ninth circus. Rots o’ ruck, guys.

[Mr Rogers]

In the old days, when I was a biology student, the Forest Service proudly proclaimed multiple use management. I remember studying controlled burns and short but intense periods of grazing to manage the land. And I eventually went into the military.

Fast forward over 25 years...and you can’t do any management without the greenies challenging you in court - when their main goal is to remove all management. After all, who are we to manage Mother Gaia...Brokaw’s woman of the year nominee.

[facedown]

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with environmentalists...

The Redundant Department of Redundancy?

[ElkGroveDan]

I believe it belongs to Sierra Wasp.

[YOUGOTIT]

The Sierra Club and Sierra Forest Legacy some of the worst bunches of scum that I have ever seen. They are anti-Human and should be put in jail for their violation of the Constitution. But they have a left-wing fascist court in the 9th so we the people have again seen out Constitution taken over by left-wing anti-American fascist pigs from the anti-human Serra Club.

[caisson71]

On to the SCOTUS for an overturn on the Justice system’s most overturned court.

[NormsRevenge]

They have quite the record,, for being overturned, that is.. lol

[boop]

"They are anti-Human and should be put in jail for their violation of the Constitution."

Agreed. They don't care if humans die in massive forest fires caused by their actions, but at least you'd think they would shed a tear when some poor innocent grub gets burned to a crisp.

[SierraWasp]

Well, the 9th Circus Clowns couldn't do anything when Mrs. Dashole's little boy got the CONgress to do the very same thing in the forests of South Dakota!!!

This Sierra Flub thrill ride just has to expire someday... SOMEWAY!!! It seems nothing, or no one can stand up to their ownership of the corrupt legal system in this part of the dumbed-down-syndromed country!!!

[NormsRevenge]

This Sierra Flub thrill ride just has to expire someday... SOMEWAY!!! It seems nothing, or no one can stand up to their ownership of the corrupt legal system in this part of the dumbed-down-syndromed country!!!

—

Looks like a few more millions acres will have to burn.. and even then.. some are blinded to no end.

[tubebender]

The SCOTUS will look like the 9th circus if we allow the wrong Demagogue get in the WH and that is not limited to the D’s...

[SierraWasp]

"and that is not limited to the D’s..."

So absolutely TRUE!!! (especially when you consider HuckaMcaRudy!!!)

Poor CA is suffering from terminal GANG-GREEN!!! (and it's BI-PARTISAN!!!)

[backtothestreets]

I don't know what to make of this. I'll take up the "and that is not limited to the D’s..." chant. 

Who would have guessed of the three judges on this panel, it was Thompson and Kleinfeld, appointed by President Reagan and President GHW Bush, that ruled against the Forest Service. Thomas, the Clinton appointed judge, kept the court from a unanimous decision. Go figure!

http://www.ninthcircuitopinions.com/2007/12/05/sierra-club-v-bosworth/

[SierraWasp]

I'm becoming convinced that Republicans and their appointees are becoming beaten down by the din in the MSM with the tired tirade that "if you're not supportive of the EnvironMental Communutty's positions, you are a threat to the environment!"

If they themselves are not beaten down by this constant castigation, then the spouse is not too kind when he/she finds out why they're not being invited to all the in-crowd's cocktail parties by the dominate political class. Even judges are vulnerable to this "shunning!"

Even their indoctrinated children coming home from school are castigating them and IT HURTS!!!

I think they're just trying to keep peace in their own family for a little domestic tranquility since they rarely have to honestly explain their decisions and when they do they can make stuff up!!!

[backtothestreets]

Since I pointed out that two of the three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel were Republican appointed judges, maybe the underlying problem is neither the judges or the court.

Could the problem be the two judges based their decision on the law? Is this an instance where the court should not be maligned, but the legislative bodies that wrote and passed the law?

The court is the most obvious target of wrath over this case, but one must consider the judges, especially conservative judges, do not base their decisions on a whim, but written law.

What good will it serve to have the most conservative of presidents elected in 2008 to appoint judges, if Congress continues passing laws that bring harm to the nation?

I hope future posts concerning the 9th Circuit Court remind people that judges are expected to apply the law as written, and if doing so brings an unpopular decision, maybe ... JUST MAYBE, the real problem is not the court, but the written law. If this be the case, the rational approach to correcting the situation is not leveling the ire of people against the court. The rational approach is to seek a more responsible Congress that writes the laws the judges are to apply.

It’s too easy to malign the 9th Circuit Court. In this instance the court is the messenger, and the message the court delivered was given it by Congress. Shooting the messenger will not alter the message an iota.

It may serve the political purpose of some to bring attention to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but IF the problem is the law itself, such attention misdirects anger, and almost certainly assures the people deserving of scorn are not held accountable.

[marsh2]

So far, our County Board of Sups. has declared the National Forests in Siskiyou County to have conditions of hazardous fuels constituting a public nuisance and have ordered immediate abatement. Last week, by resolution, we required an annual reporting by the Forest Service of carbon emissions due to forest fires and projects done to decrease the hazard. Trinity County actually has an ordinance that applies to both federal and provate lands.

Problem is, I don’t believe we have the power to enforce an abatement order on the feds, so it is largely a political statement. Possibly could have some weight in a future lawsuit when buildings get burned down due to failure to manage fuels exacerbating natural wildfires that burn off the Forest into towns. (Last summer, we had this situation in Happy Camp.)

The “police powers” are vested in County Government, but run only against individual action and not the federal government itself, I am told. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMM’N v. GRANITE ROCK CO., 480 U.S. 572 (1987)

[Carry_Okie]

NEPA may be explicit, but when its prescriptions demonstrably violate its stated purpose, and when there are provisions for exceptions such as the Bush Administration has taken, then the question becomes one of how the law is applied, not whether one can cite provisions that support one's position.

In this instance, the application is an administrative function, in which the court has no business in the first place UNLESS it is demonstrated that the consequences have been systematically reckless, which they have not.