Federal Judge Bitch Slaps Bush on Sonar and Whales.

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Craig234
You know, nearly every time I look up when the judge actually upholds the law against the Bush administration, who appointed the judge, it was a democrat. That's the case here, too.

It's an important reminder why it's very important that we block the judges who Bush and other Republicans like him appoint, who put the political agenda ahead of justice and the law so much.

LOL> Like its so different with Democrats?!
What makes the Democrats agenda any more honest then a Republicans??

Your partisan blinders are truly sickening Craig.

Well for one thing, Republicans are better than Democrats and so they are much better at being dishonest too.

Better? Hardly.
Both seem to be cut from the same corrupt mold.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Why does Bush hate whales so much?

One swallowed Jonah and he was in the Bible?

Sounds like terrorist activity to me...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Why does Bush hate whales so much?

One swallowed Jonah and he was in the Bible?

Sounds like terrorist activity to me...

Yup. Allah makes whales obey His will.

 

[5to1baby1in5]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: 5to1baby1in5
It appears the Judicial Branch is a little miffed at his treatment of their fellow judges.

Really? Then he's a pretty shitty judge IMO. I'd like to think he made his decision based on solid judicial review of the case in front of him.

I agree.

That was my comment.

I freely admit that I would make a pretty shitty judge.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: 5to1baby1in5

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: 5to1baby1in5
It appears the Judicial Branch is a little miffed at his treatment of their fellow judges.

Really? Then he's a pretty shitty judge IMO. I'd like to think he made his decision based on solid judicial review of the case in front of him.

I agree.

That was my comment.

I freely admit that I would make a pretty shitty judge.

Yeah I'd make a terrible judge... I'd be pretty damn hard on the christains, oh I mean the terrorists... I can't keep it straight....

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Craig234
You know, nearly every time I look up when the judge actually upholds the law against the Bush administration, who appointed the judge, it was a democrat. That's the case here, too.

It's an important reminder why it's very important that we block the judges who Bush and other Republicans like him appoint, who put the political agenda ahead of justice and the law so much.

LOL> Like its so different with Democrats?!
What makes the Democrats agenda any more honest then a Republicans??

Your partisan blinders are truly sickening Craig.

I have to agree that they're both pretty sickening for the most part. I am however pumped about the ruling given the rebirth of the Imperial Presidency over the last 7 years. It wouldn't matter whether it was a democratic or republican administration, I would feel the same way about the repeated transgressions against our system of checks and balances, constitution, and citizens in general.

Unfortunately this is a relatively petty victory, and although I'm happy to hear it, it doesn't even bring a smile to my face given the state of affairs.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: FoBoT
that is a load of crap, sonar hurting whales, you greenies are sooooo crazy

submarines rarely use active sonar anyway, the type of submarine i was on, for the four years i was attached, we never used our active sonar

fast attach subs probably use it more, but it is still very rare

surface ships use active sonar much more often than subs. and sonabuoys , anti-sub aircraft drop buoys that have both active and passive modes

Way to sidestep the issue. The judge's position or knowledge on whether sonar hurts whales is irrelevant to the case. The only question he had to answer is whether the president can unilaterally exempt a branch of the military from law and a court's injunction. The answer is no, for now anyway.

Do you think the president should be the final word or appeal to the judciary? Aren't you a conservative/libertarian?

Hmmm. I find that questionable.

I think what we have here is an example of overlap in Constitutional duties.

To a great extent, the military is under the President per the Constitution.

If he rightly believes (whether or not he's correct, just honestly believes) that this law interfers with his Constitutional duties he should challenge it. The SCOTUS will resolve it.

I don't see much difference in this and the court throwing out laws Congresses passes.

It's just part of the process of Checks & Balances and questions of Constitutional duties.

Fern

While in general I would disagree with you that the president can cite 'national security' as a response in opposition to a federal court ruling, apparently there is an 'exemption' provision in the Coastal Zone Management law for in which the president may exempt a federal agency in found to be in violation, where "paramount importance" is cited.
http://www.overlawyered.com/20...vy_from_environ_1.html

I'm not sure then how the federal court overrules that exemption, or what, if anything, can then overrule the exemption.

Ed: ah, the 9th circuit ct app remanded the case back to the district ct in light of the exemption. I can't find the ruling of today to see how they get around the exemption. Help? NM: Found it: http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/C...5008217bd?OpenDocument

Well worth a read. Wery intewesting, and as usual, way too dumbed down in the news stories to understand what's really going on.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

To bad these judges won't do this to Obillary when it's in office.
Screw national security, we must save the whales.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
To bad these judges won't do this to Obillary when it's in office.
Screw national security, we must save the whales.

Yeah, gotta stop that fleet of Alqaedasubmarines.

 

[Arkaign]

The Executive Branch needs to be nerfed. GWB was bad enough, but imagine 8 years of someone like Hillary or Giuliani. We need to get some god d*mned accountability from our elected officials.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
The Executive Branch needs to be nerfed. GWB was bad enough, but imagine 8 years of someone like Hillary or Giuliani. We need to get some god d*mned accountability from our elected officials.

I don't mean to derail the thread but how could Hillary or anyone for that matter be worse than the last 7 years of the Bush administration? It would be difficult without deliberately trying.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Arkaign
The Executive Branch needs to be nerfed. GWB was bad enough, but imagine 8 years of someone like Hillary or Giuliani. We need to get some god d*mned accountability from our elected officials.

I don't mean to derail the thread but how could Hillary or anyone for that matter be worse than the last 7 years of the Bush administration? It would be difficult without deliberately trying.

I know it seems hard to believe, but it's always possible.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
To bad these judges won't do this to Obillary when it's in office.
Screw national security, we must save the whales.

What you mean is "screw sonar training missions, we must save the whales". Sonar training missions != national security

 

[imported_gardener]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Screw national security, we must save the whales.

The complete disregard for the natural world will not save you from being afraid.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
To bad these judges won't do this to Obillary when it's in office.
Screw national security, we must save the whales.

security from what? Who is scary out there?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
that is a load of crap, sonar hurting whales, you greenies are sooooo crazy

submarines rarely use active sonar anyway, the type of submarine i was on, for the four years i was attached, we never used our active sonar

fast attach subs probably use it more, but it is still very rare

surface ships use active sonar much more often than subs. and sonabuoys , anti-sub aircraft drop buoys that have both active and passive modes

My ass.

Even if you were on a missile sub (which is what I'm guessing) if you didn't use your active sonar once in 4 years you were in dry dock. If nothing else ships are REQUIRED to use it occasionally just to test it to make sure it still works. So, if your ship didn't use it for 4 years there are some sonar techs who should have been standing tall at captain's mast.

Anyways though the case is about the navy conducting ASW exercises, and I know the ship I was on we used it all the damn time. Not only have studies shown pretty conclusively that it does awful things to sea life, etc... anyone who'se been on a ship when they are pinging active sonar could tell you that just from hearing it. When I was trying to sleep at night I could hear the sonar pinging through the hull, over the TV and about half a dozen people talking. Hearing damage from a gunshot is about 150 decibels and that can cause immediate ear damage. Sonar caps out at over 200+ decibels, and remember that's a logarithmic scale. Underwater to boot.

 

[jonks]

Game Over for the whales:

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...8nov13,0,2874613.story

For chrissake, did no one see Star Trek IV???

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: jonks
Game Over for the whales:

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...8nov13,0,2874613.story

For chrissake, did no one see Star Trek IV???

Well thank God for that. I, as a concerned American, demand the absolute top preparedness in our active sonar when engaging in two wars against enemies that have no Navy.

 

[SecPro]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: FoBoT
that is a load of crap, sonar hurting whales, you greenies are sooooo crazy

submarines rarely use active sonar anyway, the type of submarine i was on, for the four years i was attached, we never used our active sonar

fast attach subs probably use it more, but it is still very rare

surface ships use active sonar much more often than subs. and sonabuoys , anti-sub aircraft drop buoys that have both active and passive modes

My ass.

Even if you were on a missile sub (which is what I'm guessing) if you didn't use your active sonar once in 4 years you were in dry dock. If nothing else ships are REQUIRED to use it occasionally just to test it to make sure it still works. So, if your ship didn't use it for 4 years there are some sonar techs who should have been standing tall at captain's mast.

Yes you're an ass which is why you served on targets and not on subs. Missile boats don't even have an active SONAR capability except for a few low powered non-tactical systems. Fast boats do have the capability but it is not the sensor of choice except in very specifc acoustic conditions and tactical situations. The reason for the push to develop better active SONAR and have the submarine force become proficient in it's use is that the perceived/expected threat is very quiet diesel submarines operating in areas where the ambient noise severely limits the capabilities of passive SONAR.

 

[OCGuy]

Activist judge got owned?

 

[Throckmorton]

This is totally ridiculous. What do sonar training missions have to do with national security? They can run simulations on the boats and save the whales until there's an actual naval war, or use different frequencies..

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
This is totally ridiculous. What do sonar training missions have to do with national security? They can run simulations on the boats and save the whales until there's an actual naval war, or use different frequencies..

I would rather let the admirals decide what we need, not keyboard warriors

 

[JS80]

haha pwned, can we hang the judge now?

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: SecPro

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: FoBoT
that is a load of crap, sonar hurting whales, you greenies are sooooo crazy

submarines rarely use active sonar anyway, the type of submarine i was on, for the four years i was attached, we never used our active sonar

fast attach subs probably use it more, but it is still very rare

surface ships use active sonar much more often than subs. and sonabuoys , anti-sub aircraft drop buoys that have both active and passive modes

My ass.

Even if you were on a missile sub (which is what I'm guessing) if you didn't use your active sonar once in 4 years you were in dry dock. If nothing else ships are REQUIRED to use it occasionally just to test it to make sure it still works. So, if your ship didn't use it for 4 years there are some sonar techs who should have been standing tall at captain's mast.

Yes you're an ass which is why you served on targets and not on subs. Missile boats don't even have an active SONAR capability except for a few low powered non-tactical systems. Fast boats do have the capability but it is not the sensor of choice except in very specifc acoustic conditions and tactical situations. The reason for the push to develop better active SONAR and have the submarine force become proficient in it's use is that the perceived/expected threat is very quiet diesel submarines operating in areas where the ambient noise severely limits the capabilities of passive SONAR.

I love it when the bubble heads talk crap.

 

[trenchfoot]

I can now see a fleet of Japanese whaling ships trailing pinging subs waiting for terminally disabled whales to surface. Why waste time and effort? Let the Navy do all the work and just sashay your way in for the coup de grâce.

I guess the Navy now have free rein to target whales as convenient practice dummies for their sonar excersizes.