Posted on 02/04/2008 5:44:53 PM PST by NormsRevenge
LOS ANGELES - President Bush cannot exempt the Navy from environmental laws banning sonar training that opponents argue harms whales, a federal judge ruled Monday.
Navy officials did not immediately respond to the ruling by U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper. Mark Matsunaga, spokesman for the Navy's Pacific Fleet, headquartered in Hawaii, said officials needed time to review it before commenting.
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.
The Navy is not "exempted from compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and this Court's injunction," Cooper wrote in her 36-page decision.
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."
When he signed the exemption, Bush said complying with the law would "undermine the Navy's ability to conduct realistic training exercises that are necessary to ensure the combat effectiveness of carrier and expeditionary strike groups."
Said Reynolds:
"I've always felt that the president's actions were illegal in this case, and the judge has affirmed that point of view with the decision today."
The Judge is a 1999 Clintoon appointee
Enemies within.
No one is above environmental law, even in a time of war..
What’s that tell ya about the left and their tools?
Judge has more power than President. Is this nuts?
The President needs to respond with just 2 words:
“Watch me.”
Babbling idiots...
Let them enforce it.
That's right. The executive branch is a law unto itself. Not even answerable to G-d. In fact, it is G-d.
What’s McCain’s position on this? Anyone?
A judge orders the President how to conduct himself as Commander in Chief of the military. I say order the judge arrested and give him a little lesson on separation of powers.
When the Red Hordes are at the borders... I'm pushing you first!
I believe the Constitution gives the president power to make these decisions, as Commander in Chief.
Cooper, Florence-Marie
Born 1940 in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Central District of California
Nominated by William J. Clinton on July 14, 1999, to a seat vacated by Linda H. McLaughlin; Confirmed by the Senate on November 10, 1999, and received commission on November 15, 1999.
Education:
City College of San Francisco, 1971
Whittier College School fo Law, J.D., 1975
Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Arthur Alarcon, appellate department, Los Angeles Superior Court, 1975-1977
Deputy city attorney, Los Angeles, CA, 1977
Senior research attorney, Hon. Arthur Alarcon, Second Appellate District, California Court of Appeal, 1978-1980
Senior research attorney, Hon. Woods, Second Appellate District, California Court of Appeal, 1980-1983
Adjunct professor, San Fernando Valley College School of Law, 1980-1985
Court commissioner, Los Angeles Superior Court, CA, 1983-1990
Judge, Los Angeles Municipal Court, CA, 1990-1991
Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court, CA, 1991-1999
Race or Ethnicity: White
Gender: Female
Hope it never happens but if we ever take a strike and this kind of policy-wagging is behind it or aids it in happening, then a few orgs and folks ought to be sent away for a long time.. and I ain’t talking Gitmo..
Was that Andrew Jackson who famously said something like that?
Can the NAVY attack a judge?
If you can’t run a law practice and can prove that you are totally a tool, then they call you your honor. Exactly, who is going to enforce the judges orders?
Congressman Billybob
I am not an environmental whacko, but I do wonder. . .the ocean is a pretty big place. Why can’t the Navy avoid those 12 nautical miles? Perhaps there is a compelling reason. I am just wondering.
My God...these fruitcakes are trying to get us all killed.
Because that’s relatively “shallow” water - and that’s where things like submarines and mines like to hide.
Especially when you consider that the entire Persian Gulf is “shallow” water.
Either we practice and train to detect a sub in those conditions... or we will eventually lose a carrier to an Iranian or Chinese sub or mine. Which do you prefer?
Well, I guess the good judge will just have to send out her own navy to stop them.
And they are’nt afraid to show their face,,
As far as I'm concerned, those submariners are trying to defend us.......and those 12 miles are OUR coast line. I maybe in land locked Indiana, but I want those boys to train along the coast ( ground) they are going to defend. I want them to know every false signal and compromised zone.
I'd say its a must train area.
Thanks John. I was about to ping your opinion on this. I though so but wasn't sure.
In other words, Stuff it Judge.
If I was President Bush I would show the sob that I could. At least to the end of my term.
I expect the US Navy is supposed to be protecting those 12 nautical miles as well as all the ships that transition through those 12 miles to get to sea. Now if you wanted a nice safe place to hide from the Navy, this judge just created one.
“Watch me.”
===============
Amen!!
So if the Navy uses Sonar anyway, who is going to talk, the whales? LOL!
"Evidence of the harm such a barrage of sound can do began to surface in March 2000, when whales of four different species stranded themselves on beaches in the Bahamas after a U.S. Navy battle group used active sonar in the area. Investigators found that the whales were bleeding internally around their brains and ears. Although the Navy initially denied responsibility, the government's investigation established with virtual certainty that the strandings were caused by its use of active sonar."
Ping
I am not a sonor expert, but I would imagine operating in near shore waters is a good deal different than operating miles offshore. We do care about what happens near our shores, so it is necessary to train in these areas.
So in this judge’s opinion, if a Russian, Chinese or even Iranian submarine manages to make it within the 12-mile limit of the US coast, the Navy is barred from using sonar to detect or pursue them?
The best way to treat this “injunction” would be to ignore it as totally beneath comment.
If he has a boat...
I’m not in the navy either but I’m going to take a guess....it’s pretty hard to protect the coast line from a submarine when you not allowed to patrol the coast with sonar. Just a guess of course, the real answer is who cares, the Navy thinks it’s necessary and the CIC agrees with them and no amount of moonbats and their fellow travelers in black robes really matter when it comes to National security. Thank God for the founding father’s ability to see such tyrants well into the future.
The Navy has missiles and airplanes. They can reach out.
Oh yeah. Watch him.
So, why the twelve-mile limit? Is there more sensitive marine life at 11 miles out than 13? Are all areas of the coast equally sensitive and needing protection?
This judge simply banned all Sonar to the limit of what she presumes is her own authority. It has little to do with reality, and a lot to do with “I can, so I will”. Given the opportunity, do you think she would limit her ban to twelve miles, or extend it to fifty, or even a thousand?
JUDGE: A WHALES' HURTING EARS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN NATIONAL SECURITY
And people wonder why John McLame's "Gang of 14" was a bad idea.
Environmentalist are anti-Human Nazi scum and what they say is one BIG LIE. They are totally idiots who want to kill all humans.
How many divisions does this judge have?
>that opponents argue harms whales<
Hey judge!
Where’d you come up with such high legal standards?
If I argue that you harm whales, what happens to you?
I respect the rule of law. That said, who is going to enforce the ruling?
Just a guess, but that seems that assuming the ability to question the President’s National Security judgments is the obvious path a liberal judge who doesn’t respect the separation of powers would take.
Our system is one of checks and balances. Not saying I agree with ruling and I don’t know legally who is correct, but we have 3 branches of government and not a king or dictator.
Oh, sorry. Am I in the right thread? :-)
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.