Colorado Fisherman Forum banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,128 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Despite runaway wolf numbers and the continual decimation of game and live stock, an activist judge has let the enviros have their bottle, and put wolves back on the endangered list, based on more false science.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,877 Posts
IceInTheVeins. said:
Despite runaway wolf numbers and the continual decimation of game and live stock, an activist judge has let the enviros have their bottle, and put wolves back on the endangered list, based on more false science.
Where do get this
? Because one side, rather than the other, put on more convincing evidence then it's the judge's fault for following the law?? And if a judge makes a ruling dictated by the evidence he is given, and the law enacted by Congress, that makes him an "activist"?

What a bunch of nonsense. I love you right wingers. The minute some judge rules against your cause du jour, he becomes an "activist". ::)

"You can't fix stupid."

Here's your sign.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,877 Posts
The issue is mostly who will manage them, the states or the feds, and how. It's not a matter of re-introducing them, Steve. But, I'm sure you knew that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,651 Posts
Wyoming is at odds with the feds, while Montana and Idaho aren't. The judge said that wolves can't be managed at the state level. The states seem to do a pretty good job at managing elk, deer, antelope, moose, and bears.

I rather they stay up north and down south.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,877 Posts
What the judge ruled was that the Endangered Species Act requires that the entire species must be either listed, or delisted as endangered. The USFWS had, in essence, delisted it in Idaho and Montana, but had kept it on the endangered list in Wyoming. In essence, this judge was anything but "activist". He refused to "rewrite" the law.

"The rule delisting the gray wolf must be set aside because, though it may be a pragmatic solution to a difficult biological issue, it is not a legal one," Judge Molloy wrote.

If you don't like the outcome, then lobby to amend the statute rather than hiding behind the notion that the result is the fault of an "activist" judge.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/42028/20100809/wolves-yellowstone.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,651 Posts
A couple more excerpts...

"If you were planning on hunting gray wolf in Idaho or Montana this year, you will now have to risk doing so illegally or find some other way to amuse yourself"

"People can better protect their herds from wolves, as well as from grizzlies and coyotes, and we are willing to help them learn"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,128 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Wolf packs will go for the easy meal. Their habitat is far too altered to bring them back without humans suffering for it. So of course they go after live stock, it's the easy meal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,272 Posts
I agree with Don's assessment of what the judge did but it doesn't make it suck any less. They are WAAAAY over the wolf numbers that were agreed upon for reestablishment. Grey wolves are no more endangered than denver red fox if you include the northern populations in canada and alaska. I am of the school of thought that it should be the state's right to manage all of its' wildlife populations....period. As for for wolves in colorado.......if they are here I would like to be among the first to see one in the woods. ;)

S.S.S.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
844 Posts
Sportsman are watching their elk and deer herds vanish as predators are proliferating across the west.
Having them on the land is one matter, the problem comes when Washington is in charge of management.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,825 Posts
What I'm hearing is if a judge rules, its based strickly on the law, and that's the end of it, right? Either agree with the ruling or be classified a right winger. Now that's a real sound argument.

With that reasoning can someone explain to me why we have an appeal process, Appelate Courts or the Supreme Court?

Maybe because its a judge's interpretation of the law based upon his asumptions/persuasions rather than the symbol of Justice, blindfolded, holding the scales.

To interpret any judge's ruling contrary to personal belief and then classiying him an activist is as wrong as saying any judge's ruling is the correct interpretation of the law 100% of the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,877 Posts
Blowfish said:
What I'm hearing is if a judge rules, its based strickly on the law, and that's the end of it, right? Either agree with the ruling or be classified a right winger. Now that's a real sound argument.
You missed the point. You can't lable a judge as an "activist" just because he rules against you. But that is a frequent tactic of the Right, and we saw it here.

Blowfish said:
To interpret any judge's ruling contrary to personal belief and then classiying him an activist is as wrong as saying any judge's ruling is the correct interpretation of the law 100% of the time.
Agreed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,877 Posts
The term "activist" is ambiguous. What do you mean by "activist"? Too often, anymore, the term "activist" is applied to any judge who rules in a way that those on the Right don't like. I would reserve it for those judges who clearly and repeatedly engage in tortured interpretations of the facts and/or law to reach a predetermined result the judge desires. Those judges are very, very rare. They can exist at both ends of the political spectrum, but the term "activist judges" seems to be a particular favorite of the Right.

In my 30+ years of litigation practice, I have only known one federal judge that I thought let his personal predispositions consistently affect his rulings. Even he never did anything I would have labled "activism".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,407 Posts
solesearcher34 said:
I agree with Don's assessment of what the judge did but it doesn't make it suck any less. They are WAAAAY over the wolf numbers that were agreed upon for reestablishment. Grey wolves are no more endangered than denver red fox if you include the northern populations in canada and alaska. I am of the school of thought that it should be the state's right to manage all of its' wildlife populations....period. As for for wolves in colorado.......if they are here I would like to be among the first to see one in the woods. ;)

S.S.S.
"Hey Jeremy. I caught you a delicious puppy wolf"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
844 Posts
I guess I would say activist to me are those that twist and parse the language to allow them to interpret the law and Constitution so they in effect can change the laws without the consent of "The People".
I think this is done in many cases regarding personal freedoms, environmental laws, and states rights. Amazingly all matters considered dear to the right wings heart, hard to imagine ::)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,825 Posts
gofindyourowndamnfish said:
Blowfish said:
What I'm hearing is if a judge rules, its based strickly on the law, and that's the end of it, right? Either agree with the ruling or be classified a right winger. Now that's a real sound argument.
You missed the point. You can't lable a judge as an "activist" just because he rules against you. But that is a frequent tactic of the Right, and we saw it here.

Blowfish said:
To interpret any judge's ruling contrary to personal belief and then classiying him an activist is as wrong as saying any judge's ruling is the correct interpretation of the law 100% of the time.
Agreed.
I think activist has become a synonymous label applied to any person who doesn't agree with another person's viewpoint, mainly in context with matters of government and natural resource. Where would we be today without our founding activist forefathers? They managed to include those with allegiance to King George, fashion a Constitution, and lay the framework for our great nation.

To make a blanket statement that the word activist, when applied to a judge’s ruling, automatically defines a person as a right-winger will also certainly define the person making the statement as a left-winger and there is the conundrum. The two will never sit down in a partisan way and discuss the reasoning behind their statement.

Anyone see a similarity with what we are faced with currently? All I know is a house divided will surely fall. Is that what we all want? Or do we take our bruised egos, leave them at the door, and learn to make decisions and laws for the betterment of all or as close to all as a republic form of government will allow?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,877 Posts
UNREPENTANT SINNER said:
I guess I would say activist to me are those that twist and parse the language to allow them to interpret the law and Constitution so they in effect can change the laws without the consent of "The People".
I think this is done in many cases regarding personal freedoms, environmental laws, and states rights. Amazingly all matters considered dear to the right wings heart, hard to imagine ::)
It can be done by the Justice Scalia wannabes of the world, too. It just depends on whose oxe is getting gored.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
844 Posts
Last I checked my ox was the one that mattered ;D I know that fits exactly into what Bf has described but leaving the issues that are important and a priority to me at the door when there is such a diametrically opposed view on most of them doesn't leave much room for compromise.
How can the gun control, abortion, immigration, environmental, and social issues as they stand be compromised and agreed upon? Sadly I see very little room on either side so it generaly will have to be a last man standing and the other will be the permanent antagonist till the end of our Republic.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top