You probably saw that the Supreme Court sided with the U.S. Navy against the whales off Southern California. While I don’t have all that much to say about it, I thought it would be of interest to some of y’all to discuss the ruling here.
Whales are great, but I thought what Chief Justice John Roberts wrote made sense:
“The lower courts failed properly to defer to senior Navy officers’ specific, predictive judgments,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., joined by four other justices, wrote for the court in the first decision of the term.
For the environmental groups that sought to limit the exercises, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “the most serious possible injury would be harm to an unknown number of marine mammals that they study and observe.” By contrast, he continued, “forcing the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained antisubmarine force jeopardizes the safety of the fleet.”
Contrasting with that snappy salute to the brass, Justices Ginsburg and Souter luridly dissented:
“Sonar is linked to mass strandings of marine mammals, hemorrhaging
around the brain and ears” and acute effects on the central nervous
system as well as “lesions in vital organs,” Justice Ginsburg wrote.And
though the Navy has said it can find no previous documented case of
sonar-related injury to a marine mammal in such exercises, Justice
Ginsburg said the service had predicted that a current set of exercises
off the California coast would cause lasting injuries to hundreds of
beaked whales, along with vast behavioral disturbances to whales,
dolphins and sea lions.
The majority was overturning a ruling by the — you guessed it — Ninth Circuit.
And yes, that headline is a reference to Tom Clancy, who, were he an appeals judge, would be more of the Fourth Circuit variety.
Related Posts
Once again we choose death and environmental calamity in the overstated case that we can’t defend ourselves against a bunch of third-rate nations. Unbelievable.
Maybe you can’t defend yourself…
nice reference Brad. I can hear the famous accent.
You know, nature preservation is important and should be strived for, which was in this case, but sometimes, there is a legit need.
But honestly, it’s not like the ocean is big and vast and training couldn’t be done somewhere else. Afterall, its not like our submarines can be submerged for days on end with out the need to resurface.
If dead whale carcasses began to wash across the beaches of Myrtle Beach, you better believe that South Carolinia politicians and their puppet masters would be furious and demanding it to cease and desist.
Business’s and people who depend on a healthy coastline, just don’t want bloated whale chum washing on their shores.
Not so unreasonable request, now is it?
Yes, once again we put our ability to make warfare over the wellbeing of nature. A recipe for disaster; a symptom of a larger intellectual disconnect, of hubris, of moral perfidy.
Not surprising in the least to read such an opinion from Roberts, with those cold, dead eyes, his depravity shimmering and visible like an oil slick.
Once again, we engage in hyperbolic, apocalyptic language in expressing our disapproval of all things military…
Guys, I think what Justice Roberts was saying (and Don, you’re ripping off my line about Rahm Emanuel with the "dead eyes" thing) was that there’s such a thing as weighing costs and benefits. It’s not all one thing or all the other. It’s not train our crews OR let the whales live. He found the Navy’s arguments regarding the precautions it takes and the risk to wildlife more persuasive than the arguments of the other side.
Maybe I shouldn’t have brought up this topic, because by doing so I invite the politicization of court rulings, which is something I hate. Call me a Pollyanna, but I see the Court as outside all that left-right nonsense. I look at the court’s rulings, and generally see actual, good-faith, sound legal reasoning in the rulings — the ones I agree with, and the ones I disagree with. I see it in the majority opinions, and in the dissents.
So I’m sorry I brought up a topic that invites a 60s-style hawks-vs.-doves reaction. I just found it interesting.
wtf wrote: “Afterall, its not like our submarines can be submerged for days on end with out the need to resurface.”
———–
Sounds like Mr./Mrs. wtf hasn’t heard about our nuclear submarines that can stay submerged for months at a time. The only reason to surface is to reload for items like food for the crew.
I’m not a granola munching Greenpeace activist by any means, but what is happening by these “pings” is no different than sticking your head in a bucket and firing a pistol inside the bucket. Do that a couple hundred times a day and see how that turns out.
It’s not all one thing or all the other. It’s not train our crews OR let the whales live. He found the Navy’s arguments regarding the precautions it takes and the risk to wildlife more persuasive than the arguments of the other side.
-Brad
Of course he did. He’s a neocon, pro-military, GOP hack, not a prudent jurist who considers things in their proper perspective. That’s why Obama opposed his confirmation.
Neocons are LIBERAL Republicans, bud.
Lee, you do realize that neocon is short for neo-conservative, don’t you?
How can someone who is CONSERVATIVE be a called a LIBERAL at the same time?
Just classic, Lee. Classic.
Just more proof that listening to Rush will turn your brain into mush, even more so.
Bill C. It’s called sarcasm. Check into it.
wtf never got beyond reading the label “neo-conservative”, to reading anything they actually promoted, which is liberalism.
The pathetic thing is that you neo-socialists think you are liberal and think you are educated, by watching MTV and maybe sitting in a few college classes by professors who are no more educated than yourselves, just older.