The author of the AP story doesn't understand what's going on: they write, in the lead, "Parts of the Endangered Species Act may soon be extinct." It's not true. They even tell us it's not true a few sentences later, saying the changes "don't require the approval of Congress." If they don't require the approval of Congress, then the Act is not being changed. I hate to say it, but, Duh.
The AP author shouldn't feel too badly, as the environmental attorney interviewed for the story, Eric Glitzenstein, doesn't understand it, or even the Constitution, very well either. Glitzenstein called this "the fox guarding the henhouse," but to the extent that's true, it has always been true, and it's no more true now than it was before.
Article II of the Constitution says: "The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." This means that the President has all the executive power, every bit of it, and everyone under him only acts directly subject to his constitutional authority. The President has every right under the Constitution to dictate to each of these people exactly how to do their jobs. As far as "who" is in charge of the process -- foxes or some other creatures -- nothing's changed, because it's still the President.
I should add though that if Glitzenstein were in charge, he'd probably put the hens in charge of the henhouse, which might sound fairly democratic, but since hens are pretty stupid and I actually might want to eat some of them for dinner, that seems like a pretty bad idea to me.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at August 11, 2008 09:11 PM | Email ThisYou Do Not Get It.
There is No Actual Difference here. It was President Bush who made the decisions before, it is President Bush who makes the decisions now. And it was federal government scientists who made those decisions on behalf of Bush before, and now? Exact same thing. Just different ones, because, in large part, the system was unnecessarily redundant.
There's another "henhouse" analogy to be made here: you're running around like a chicken with your head cut off. Or maybe screaming like Chicken Little.
All I have to say is that like HappyHeathen and the AP and the lawyer, you do not, at all, understand the issue.
What is so hard for you people about actually understanding an issue before forming an opinion about it? Honestly. I know not all issues are simple to understand, but if you don't understand it, isn't it better to withhold judgment rather than saying things that don't make any sense?
I used to take it for granted that the human race evolved beyond the Neanderthal period, however thanks to pudge I'm again reminded that some of us have not yet made the transition.
Posted by: Killy on August 11, 2008 10:46 PMMelissaRose: actually, yes it IS that you don't get the issue. You are taking this change to mean something it does not mean. The fact that you incorrectly claim that this change will, in any way whatsoever, remove the protections of the ESA. It will not. You do not get this fact, so therefore, yes, you do not get the issue.
I'm unsure what your point is. I understand that you are making a point that the President has the authority to enforce legislation passed by congress as he sees fit, absent from legislative challenge. You don't address however any of the substance of the regulation change. Out of that entire story, the only thing you pointed out was that the president, the decider, has the power to do what he is doing. No mention of the conflict of interests between the politics of the republican administration and the correct execution of the Endangered Species Act? For someone who is constantly pointing to others not understanding the issue, you don't even address it.
Posted by: Steve on August 12, 2008 12:57 AMThis was TEEN Jeopardy, my friend. Quite easy stuff.
Posted by: meg on August 12, 2008 06:12 AMBut, despite the claim that projects won't be 'rubber stamped' that is exactly what will happen. Let's see. We could spend time and money finding out exactly what will happen if we build this project or we can just say it will be fine, build it, and if something bad happens just appologize and move on to something else. Yes, this sounds like a much better idea.
And even if you are correct that the Endangered Species Act isn't officially being changed, it is being circumvented. And that is even worse if you ask me. Now Bush, likely one of the most environmentally unfriendly Presidents in history, can say he made no changes to the ESA and still get his way.
If this proposal becomes reality you will see rampant destruction of wetlands, rapid increases in stream channelization, increased sedimentation in water systems, and overall degredation of our environement.
Posted by: Isaac on August 12, 2008 06:32 AMI once saw a "scientist" declare that an area was habitat for an endangered salamander that never ventured more than 27 feet from its nest. He lifted up a rock, looked at the soil for less than 20 seconds, and declared, "Yeah, that looks like habitat." And thus, on private land, a 12-unit townhouse project was killed.
We're so arrogant we fail to consider that, just maybe, the laws of natural selection are still in force, regardless of the actions of mankind. Perhaps a salamander that never ventures more than 27 feet from its nest, that's never been found anywhere else besides a single, solitary mountain, is being naturally selected out of the ecosystem by forces beyond our control or comprehension. Of course, that never occurs to the loony-bin, which believes that we're now at some perfect harmonious balance which would never change but for the presence of man. Please. The earth is a dynamic, constantly changing organism; there is no such thing as static balance for the planet. Things are constantly changing, and species are constantly evolving, and -- sorry to break it to you zealots -- there can be no evolution or natural selection without extinction. And it's going to occur regardless of what mankind does. Extinction didn't cease to be just because mankind came to be.
If a species should survive, it will find a way. Spotted owls were supposed to be unable to live outside of old-growth forests in the Pacific northwest; we've found them living in billboards along freeways in southern California. 125,000 gorillas were found living where they weren't supposed to be able to live (and that 125k is more than were supposed to be existing in the wild in total). Ad infinitum.
Enough of the nonsense. The planet -- and critical wildlife -- will survive no matter what humans do. Sorry to break it to you, but we're just not that powerful. The earth of today, with all of its biodiversity, is a product of all the mass extinctions that have come before. Humans, the most complex life form in the history of the planet, are a net result of mass extinctions. That's not only amazing, but it should give one pause. It's a shame that those who are conceited enough to believe humanity can "destroy" the earth aren't humble enough to consider it.
Bush wanting to relax these restrictions, which are based more on emotions than on genuine, legitimate science, is causing much more hysteria and gnashing of teeth than is warranted based on emprical scientific evidence.
Posted by: Tired on August 12, 2008 07:03 AMpudge you're forgetting about the other 2 articles of the constitution which bring up the power of the legislative and judicial branches of the government...you know the ones that have the power to override the president? And you also forget that Bush should have no authority over an area such as wildlife preservation seeing as his experience in that area is something close to 0. And also, you're the simple person who cannot come up with any counter argument of any substance so you simply say that you, and anyone who agrees with you, are the only people who actually understand the issue and anyone who doesn't agree with you clearly is a moron who has no idea what they're talking about. Grow beyond the second grade mentality and you just may find that when you use your own brain the world will get much much bigger.
Posted by: R on August 12, 2008 07:12 AMWhile you pretend to be learned about our Governmental system, you - like every other Bush support who thinks its ok for him to walk over everything our government has stood for in the last 200 years - Forgot something important. There WAS a system of checks and balances in place, to insure that Neither branch of the government had more power than the other. Judicial vs executive vs Legislative.
What this means, is that how our government is supposed to work, is that When Bush says, "I claim executive Privledge!" The Judicial Branch says, "So? Get over here. Now."
Posted by: Iknowmorethanyou on August 12, 2008 07:29 AMThank you for your thoughts. Prior to reading them I was completely appalled at the presidental bypass of the laws (which is in his rights). After reading your post I have to admit that it has me thinking.
I do not believe it will change my final decision that this bypass is a bad idea, but it has made me pause and recognize the fact that I could be mistaken. I often celebrate contrarian perspectives as it often leads to a greater understanding of all information for all parties involved, thus, regardless of "who is right", I thank you for your post.
In the grand scheme of things, this decision is fairly minor. In that it can be corrected (if deemed wrong) by debate and a congressional law change. Some decisions (regardless of your opinion of whether it is right or not) are virtually impossible to back away from with just a simple debate... for example, Iraq.
Posted by: Marc on August 12, 2008 07:43 AMAnd you really don't believe humans can destroy the earth? Sure we can. In seconds. That's not conceit, it's reality.
The environment is not - and should not - be a two-sided debate: one side perpetual gloom and doom, the other extraneous. Adhering to either size demands a laziness of intellect, an unwillingness to address the complexities of a very real issue - the perfect tools for politicians, business leaders and pundits to exploit while never achieving effective solutions.
Posted by: Dave on August 12, 2008 08:34 AMNo mention of the conflict of interests between the politics of the republican administration and the correct execution of the Endangered Species Act?
You are missing the point that this potential conflict already existed.
pud:
The president has never had the power to make environmental impact reports, and you don't know what you're talking about.
False. Read the Constitution. Any power that someone in the Executive branch has, is a power that the President has. And as YOU pointed out, the ESA granted powers to federal agencies. That necessarily means the President had that power, according to the Constitution.
kim:
I understand exactly what Bush is doing and I agree with Holly, he is short sighted and has all his industry buddies in his pocket and now he is gonna give them a parting gift.
Your second clause disagrees with your first.
gp:
The breakdown is that for an area to remain protected if a government agency wants to begin development that may endanger a species on the threatened or endangered list they will ow be able to make this important decision without any true expert oversight.
False. The decisions will still be made with the input of experts.
Bryan:
Wow, pudge sounds pretty ignorant of the Constitution himself. If article 2 really gave the president that kind of executive power (without checks and balances) he would be a dictator.
False. That's not remotely true. I never said the President doesn't have checks and balances. I said all Executive power belongs to the President. The Congress cannot say, "this agency under Bush has that power, and the President can't tell them what to do." That is unconstitutional.
Clearly pudge doesn't like the notion of democracy
Clearly you beat your mother.
Isaac:
But, despite the claim that projects won't be 'rubber stamped' that is exactly what will happen.
False.
We could spend time and money finding out exactly what will happen if we build this project
No, you couldn't. It's not possible.
or we can just say it will be fine, build it, and if something bad happens just appologize and move on to something else.
That is a complete mischaracterization of the proposed change.
And even if you are correct that the Endangered Species Act isn't officially being changed, it is being circumvented.
No, it is not.
If this proposal becomes reality you will see rampant destruction of wetlands, rapid increases in stream channelization, increased sedimentation in water systems, and overall degredation of our environement.
No, we will not.
I know it's nice to be able to live in a fantasy land where your presuppositions are indistinguishable from facts, but I live in the real world, and things are not true just because you say they are.
R:
pudge you're forgetting about the other 2 articles of the constitution which bring up the power of the legislative and judicial branches of the government
No, I am not.
...you know the ones that have the power to override the president?
Not in this case, no. Neither branch has any authority to take away constitutional powers of the President, and one of those constitutional powers is "all executive power." So if Congress gives a power to someone in the Executive, it gives it to the President, and can't tell the President that he can't tell the person or agency under him what to do.
And you also forget that Bush should have no authority over an area such as wildlife preservation ...
The Constitution and Congress say differently. Congress have the Executive branch this power, and the people elected Bush as their Executive under the Constitution, therefore he SHOULD have this authority. (Funny, someone erroneously said I dislike democracy, but 'R' here is the one who is making a facial challenge to democracy here.)
And also, you're the simple person who cannot come up with any counter argument of any substance so you simply say that you, and anyone who agrees with you, are the only people who actually understand the issue
Um. I'll wait for you to bring up a substantive argument before I care what you have to say in that regard.
Iknowmorethanyou:
While you pretend to be learned about our Governmental system, you - like every other Bush support who thinks its ok for him to walk over everything our government has stood for in the last 200 years - Forgot something important. There WAS a system of checks and balances in place, to insure that Neither branch of the government had more power than the other. Judicial vs executive vs Legislative.
Except that you have it backward: in fact, if any branch is exerting undue power over another, it is the legislative branch that is trying to take away the proper constitutional authority of the President, as clearly expressed in Article II.
What this means, is that how our government is supposed to work, is that When Bush says, "I claim executive Privledge!" The Judicial Branch says, "So? Get over here. Now."
Well, no, that is not how it is supposed to work. In fact, our court has for hundreds of years steadfastly refused to step in and override the President on legitimate claims of executive authority. And this surely is one.
Sean:
Whoever wrote this blog don't know jack about federal agencies and how they operate.
Incorrect.
Furthermore, quoting the constitution to justify your point does little without something more recent that interprets it.
Also incorrect.
You've probably never heard of the administrative procedures act, duh.
Further incorrect.
Jon:
Pudge. You have no clue whatsoever about what you are talking about. The President only has power to enforce the LAWS and BILLS that CONGRESS and the courts approve of.
I never said otherwise. However, Congress CANNOT -- without violating the Constitution -- pass a law that requires certain Executive powers to be out of the President's direct and total control. When the Congress says "the executive branch has this power," it necessarily means, "the President has this power."
And he is no president considering he should have been impeached years ago but no one wants to listen.
Could be worse: we could have had Kucinich, who wants to violate the Constitution more than any major-party Presidential candidate in history.
Posted by: pudge on August 12, 2008 08:46 AMAnd please don't just proclaim "no it doesn't" or another of your glib pronouncements of the "truth". It doesn't help express your position, it just makes you look lazy.
Posted by: Gib on August 12, 2008 12:25 PMSo since one executive department said it, it is therefore true?
Come on.
And Daniel, I'm not going on an "emotional sleigh ride"; I'm trying to provoke a real debate out of a slew of name-calling. It should seem obvious to everyone here that this is not really a debate about global warming. That's a topic for another board. These rules changes are being proposed to avoid having environmentalists use the ESA as a "back door" to regulate greenhouse gases. The question is whether the proposed changes are too broad - whether there would likely be a slew of unintended consequences, such as the ones that HappyHeathen pointed out. That's the debate. Is protection of animals sometimes take to the extreme? It's pretty easy to find examples that support this. It's also easy to find many, many more examples where the guidance of the National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service was required because few other agencies have any expertise.
Maybe you should check that bathwater before throwing it out...
No, it's not just one executive department.
You say that as though you are disagreeing with me, or that it matters to the point anyway. You are not disagreeing with me, and it does not matter to the point. I said "one executive department" because I was just speaking to the principle, not to the specific case: why do you believe "one" department over another?
Yes, it's more than one department, disagreeing with more than one other department. That's not important. What's important is that you are taking the word of the departments you WANT to believe, without actually looking at any of the evidence. You want to believe them, because what they say fits your preconceived notions, so you are taking their side.
I am pointing out the fact that you are acting quite illogically.
Other government agencies are currently REQUIRED to consult with them under section 7 of the act.
All of them executive agencies, exercising executive power, which means that the Congress is requiring THE PRESIDENT to do those things, as per Article II of the Constitution, which means that the President has the authority to say how it's actually going to be done.
If you or anyone else hasn't actually read the act, I think it could be very instructive.
If you haven't read Article II of the Constitution, I think it could be very instructive. Hopefully you think there is some value in being informed.
Posted by: pudge on August 13, 2008 08:13 AMI'm not sure I agree with your characterization "if there is a disagreement, their boss gets to decide". It's true that the executive branch enforces the law (through these rules changes, they want to do so using a different process than before), and the President has the power to propose any enforcement scheme he wishes. But he can't change what the law says, and enforcement is not optional. GW is NOT "The Decider" when it comes to compliance with the law. The courts are. They decide whether the President's enforcement results in compliance with the law passed by Congress. There are many ESA issues being decided every day in Federal and state courts. And not "constitutional basis" questions, but real questions about whether a specific action is illegal under the act. Again, I urge people to read the act. Your tax dollars are paying to make it available online.
I hope that everyone learned all this stuff in high school government class, but after re-reading some of the above posts, it appears that some of you were asleep.
Posted by: Gib on August 13, 2008 08:21 AMI'm not sure I agree with your characterization "if there is a disagreement, their boss gets to decide".
It's absolutely true. EVEN IF there is NOT disagreement, their boss gets to decide. He can tell them how to do their jobs, because in fact, it is the President's job that they are doing.
Again: read Article II! I'll quote the relevant portion again: "The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." It is unconstitution to divest the President of any executive power.
I hope that everyone learned all this stuff in high school government class, but after re-reading some of the above posts, it appears that some of you were asleep.
Funny, I was thinking the same about you.
I never said the President couldn't tell Executive Branch employees how to do their job. I just said that the courts get to determine whether the result is legal.
I actually did read Article II again just now...couldn't find the part about GW being name king. Ha Ha! Really, I'm not talking about divesting GW of his power, but having departments of the federal govt. ignore the advice of its own experts is going to result in ALOT more cases in the courts. Where GW doesn't get to decide anything.
I wouldn't expect that NOAA could provide any guidance in the area nuclear security.
I consider that to be a nonsensical comparison. The NOAA does not regularly deal with nuclear security, and have experts on nuclear security. The other federal agencies discussed here DO have such experts.
My position is partially based on the idea that the FWS has expertise in this area, and most other departments do not.
Ah. So your position is based on flawed information.
I never said the President couldn't tell Executive Branch employees how to do their job. I just said that the courts get to determine whether the result is legal.
No, you are saying that one executive department has to do certain things. The Congress CANNOT say that. It's unconstitutional.
I actually did read Article II again just now...couldn't find the part about GW being name king. Ha Ha!
I can't tell what you mean here, but as far as the Executive branch is concerned, ALL executive power belongs to the President. This is not the same, obviously, as being a king: a king would have all POWER, not merely all EXECUTIVE power.
Really, I'm not talking about divesting GW of his power
Yes, you are. You're saying that the President cannot determine who under him exercises which parts of HIS authority. He can.
A nonsensical comparison? What other agencies have expertise in wildlife habitats? How is my information flawed? Please provide some reference.
"You're saying that the President cannot determine who under him exercises which parts of HIS authority."
NO I'm not saying that. READ MY POSTS. Please quote the section where I say that. Are you just kidding me?
What I wrote was that GW "has the power to propose any enforcement scheme he wishes". Even if his scheme is idiotic.
Posted by: Gib on August 13, 2008 09:25 AM
A nonsensical comparison?
Yes.
What other agencies have expertise in wildlife habitats?
It's not about that, it's about having expertise in reviewing your projects at a higher level (such as determining whether some species MIGHT be endangered). And then if necessary you can go to the experts in specific habitats, instead of going to them for every single thing.
NO I'm not saying that.
Yes, you are.
READ MY POSTS.
I did.
Please quote the section where I say that.
Gladly. I'm not sure I agree with your characterization "if there is a disagreement, their boss gets to decide".
Are you just kidding me?
No, are you kidding yourself? You're not kidding anyone else.
Posted by: pudge on August 13, 2008 09:42 AMHere's my answer: Read Section 4 of the Act, which specifies what is required of each department.
Posted by: Gib on August 13, 2008 09:48 AMWhat about my "flawed information"? This is your chance to provide some substance. Or are you afraid?
Posted by: Gib on August 13, 2008 09:58 AMNice job including only half of my quote.
I don't believe the second half negated or moderated the first half, and therefore I do not believe it was relevant to my point. The President DOES get to decide ALL disagreements in the executive branch. And even non-disagreements.
But that's OK, because you added another quote that ALSO proves what I said you said:
Here's my answer: Read Section 4 of the Act, which specifies what is required of each department.
And the Congress CANNOT do that. What is "required" of each department is actually required of the PRESIDENT ultimately, and he is free to delegate those tasks as he wishes. The problem here, clearly, is you are just not understanding what I am saying, or what the Constitution says.
Did you realize that the FWS cannot sue another executive department for failing to consult them? Do you know why that is? It's because the FWS, and every other executive department, IS the President. The FWS suing another department would be like the President suing himself. It makes no sense. And it also makes no sense to say, for the exact same reason, that the President cannot delegate any power of one department to any other department as he sees fit, because ALL executive power is THE PRESIDENT'S power. That's what the Constitution actually says.
What about my "flawed information"? This is your chance to provide some substance. Or are you afraid?
Um. I already answered that. I wasn't afraid when I did it, either.
Um, not really. Are you saying that most departments have expertise in "determining whether some species MIGHT be endangered"? Internal reviews by the FWS don't think so; why do you?
So did you read section 4 of the Act, or not? I can provide a link if you don't know how to find stuff on the internet.
Posted by: Gib on August 13, 2008 10:30 AMAgain, you're just arbitrarily taking the word of a department you happen to agree with because of your preconceived notions.
So did you read section 4 of the Act, or not?
You keep talking about it as though it is relevant. Yet you have not yet provided a cogent and reasonable argument for WHY it is relevant. I have already shown you that it is not.
But you didn't answer the question. I'll repeat: Are you saying that most departments have expertise in "determining whether some species MIGHT be endangered"?
Posted by: Gib on August 13, 2008 10:50 AMSo that means they're right, obviously! (Ha.)
But you didn't answer the question.
Incorrect.
Really? You answered? I must have missed it. You said, "...it's about having expertise in reviewing your projects at a higher level (such as determining whether some species MIGHT be endangered". I have asked twice now whether you think that most agencies have this expertise. Are you ever going to answer, or just run away? 'Cause I'll keep asking.
You can keep asking something I've answered. I won't stop you, but I won't bother continuing to point out the fact that I answered.
You seem to be a bit self-righteous here, which is odd, considering you keep falsely asserting that Congress can divest the President of his power.
It's a yes or no question. Which is it?
Posted by: Gib on August 13, 2008 11:36 AMYes, I have already answered you.
Posted by: pudge on August 13, 2008 11:45 AMWell, your answer was implied, but your actual answer to the question of agency expertise was "It's not about that..."
How do you support the assertion that these agencies have sufficient expertise? As you mentioned, yes I AM "taking the word of a department", but not because of preconceived notions. I could change my mind given some contrary evidence...do you have any?
The reason I wanted you to answer clearly is that I think it's ALL about agency expertise. This issue revolves around whether the rules changes will still result in decisions which pass the "best scientific and commercial data available" language in the law. Example, GW cannot arbitrarily remove an animal from the endangered or protected list, because such an action would be deemed illegal, since it wasn't based on any scientific facts. See what I mean? It seems inevitable to me that a major reduction in consultations with wildlife experts would result in more non-compliance with the "best scientific data" requirement in the law. Which would mean more lawsuits. What do you think?
I'll be back tomorrow.
How do you support the assertion that these agencies have sufficient expertise?
See, this is what I've been waiting for you to get to. It's about time. I support it in exactly the same way as YOU support the assertion that they do NOT. You choose to believe, without substantive reasons but merely presupposition, that the FWS is right, because they are experts in wildlife species. I choose to believe, in the same way, that the administration is right, because THEY are experts in decision-making processes and the capabilities of the other agencies.
At this point, you should guess that I don't actually believe the administration when they say the other departments have expertise. However, I am fully justified in claiming so, because I am using the same logic you are.
As you mentioned, yes I AM "taking the word of a department", but not because of preconceived notions.
False. That is exactly what you are doing. You do not have any actual information about the cases you cited. You presume they are right based on presupposition.
I could change my mind given some contrary evidence...do you have any?
Normally people actually need POSITIVE evidence to believe things, not a LACK of NEGATIVE evidence.
The reason I wanted you to answer clearly is that I think it's ALL about agency expertise.
The reason I refused to be more specific is because you are quite clearly using a double standard. You will believe the FWS without specific evidence, but not the administration claims about the other agencies, and you base that disbelief of the administration based on the same lack of evidence.
This issue revolves around whether the rules changes will still result in decisions which pass the "best scientific and commercial data available" language in the law.
And you have no serious reason to believe it won't. Only your presuppositions.
Example, GW cannot arbitrarily remove an animal from the endangered or protected list, because such an action would be deemed illegal, since it wasn't based on any scientific facts.
But the President CAN direct any agency to make its determination based on whatever scientific evidence HE decides is the best. He has every right under the Constitution to do that.
So theoretically, the President can direct agency determination as you describe...but it won't mean much when it's overturned by the courts.
See, isn't this more fun than name-calling?
Something you don't have a copy of is evidence for why you believe in something you can't verify?
Statements from the FWS do not count? We need the actual report?
Statements from the Bush administration don't count? I need to cite specific examples of expertise in other departments?
See, I can play this game too. THAT IS THE POINT.
So theoretically, the President can direct agency determination as you describe...but it won't mean much when it's overturned by the courts.
No court would overturn this, and if they did, it would be overturned, since no legal law is being violated.
See, isn't this more fun than name-calling?
Since you aren't saying anything interesting or substantive, no, it's not. My point all along has been that you have no point. You want to believe the FWS, so you do. It's that simple.
Posted by: pudge on August 13, 2008 07:57 PMHave you read any actual court cases? Such as the one in 2003 where Bush was trying to change the rules about consultation with FWS? I'm guessing not, since you said "no court would overturn this". Guess what? They did. What law was being violated? The Endangered Species act. So tell me how the court got this wrong.
Posted by: Gib on August 14, 2008 04:18 AMThe statement is my evidence
It's extremely weak evidence, since as far as you and I know, it's not backed up by anything at all.
And no, statements don't count from the Bush administration as heavily as ones from the FWS when it comes to endangered species.
You are forgetting what I wrote:
You choose to believe, without substantive reasons but merely presupposition, that the FWS is right, because they are experts in wildlife species. I choose to believe, in the same way, that the administration is right, because THEY are experts in decision-making processes and the capabilities of the other agencies.
Bush administration statements about how decisions should be made, and about the capabilities of other agencies, count MORE heavily than FWS statements about such things.
If you want to believe in politicians over scientists, then I feel sorry for you.
You're the one who should be felt sorry for. Scientists are not some magical creatures who are more likely to be right and have more credibility. Scientists are just as stupid and crooked and flawed as everyone else. There's one top scientist who goes on NewsHour and lies about global warming. There's another one -- who used to work for Bush -- who does not even understand what science IS.
Calling yourself a scientist does not give you any extra credibility with me. This, too, would be a logical fallacy. You have to actually prove your claim, not just say "hey look at me, I'm a scientist, wheeeeeee!
This administration is clearly opposed to many provisions of the ESA, and this is just another or their attempts to circumvent enforcemtnt of it.
False.
Plus, the administration has show numerous times that they have no problem ignoring science to achieve their political agenda.
False.
I'm sure that if these changes were to stand (which they won't, just like in 2003), project delays will be reduced, costs will be reduced, etc. None of which will have any influence on the court when they overturn the rules change. Do you want to comment on the 2003 ruling? It's a very similar case. I mean a real comment, not just declaring "False" or "It doesn't matter".
Posted by: Gib on August 14, 2008 08:54 AMI'll admit that the administration are the experts in the decision-making process. Who cares That's not what the law is about.
False. It is what ALL laws regarding mandates to the executive branch are about.
The law is about protecting wildlife. Since it's unlikely that you or I will analyze these reports, then you have to believe somebody.
Wow. Why on Earth would you say such an obviously false thing? It is indisputably true that you don't have to take sides on the issue, and in my opinion, it is stupid to do so when you self-admittedly don't have logical justification for doing so.
Scientists with the FWS DO have more credibility with most people when it comes to issues of wildlife management. This obviously includes me, and, unfortunately for the administration, the courts.
No, you are seriously confused. Again: as far as any court is concerned, the Bush Administration *IS* the FWS. It is unconstitutional to pit the FWS against the President in court. There CANNOT be any constitutional ruling that cares about the "credibility" of the FWS "versus" the Administration.
They're not infallible, but they should have MUCH more credibility than non-scientists in the administration.
No. ACTUAL EVIDENCE AND FACTS have credibility, when backed up by good science. Random scientists -- any random people -- have no credibility with me.
Were you a big supporter of Rush Limbaugh when he used to say that smoking doesn't cause cancer?
No, because I looked at the ACTUAL EVIDENCE AND FACTS, and knew he was wrong.
I'm sure that if these changes were to stand (which they won't, just like in 2003)
No, you're wrong about that, too. There's no legal justification for doing so.
Posted by: pudge on August 14, 2008 09:09 AMPudge, you seem pretty sure that judicial reversal won't happen, but this has ALREADY HAPPENED, more than once. It will happen again. If you don't think so, then provide a dissenting opinion of the 2003 ruling. Or just wait for the next one.
As far a choosing sides, I believe you did too when you said that this wouldn't "in any way whatsoever, remove the protections of the ESA". Eliminating many of the initial reviews will certainly do that.
I'm not talking about pitting one agency against another. Private citizens or groups CAN sue other agencies (such as the EPA) for failing to consult with the FWS et. al. This has already happened, too. I suspect that you consider such rulings unconstitutional.
Posted by: Gib on August 14, 2008 09:49 AMYou keep saying that, but it's not true. Just because there was A DECISION about SOMETHING in 2003, doesn't mean that it applies to this case.
As far a choosing sides, I believe you did too when you said that this wouldn't "in any way whatsoever, remove the protections of the ESA".
That's purely a matter of fact.
I'm not talking about pitting one agency against another.
Yes, you are. You were talking about the credibility of the Bush administration vs. the credibility of the FWS.
Well, it was a decision about the administration ignoring the consultation requirement of the ESA. If you don't think they are related, then I guess I have over-estimated your intelligence.
"That's purely a matter of fact". The fact is, it won't change the law. I realize that not everyone understands this, but I do. Changing enforcement of the law changes the protections the law affords. Example: Assult and battery laws prevent me from punching you in the mouth, because I could get arrested. But if the govt. says that they aren't going to prosecute anyone for assult, then the law (without enforcement) won't provide you any protection. It becomes moot. The two have to work together. See?
If you do not know the difference between a "related" case and "the same" case, then ...
Changing enforcement of the law changes the protections the law affords.
That is PURELY a matter of your own opinion, and NOT what the law says. This how you FEEL it should work, but it's not how it actually works.
My opinion? It's just common sense. You chose the word protection, not me. You could have just said it wouldn't change the law.
The consultation requirement is in the law, not part of the administration-controlled enforcement rules. The key phrase in the law is "best available scientific evidence". I doubt if you care. You probably haven't read the law, even an synopsis of it.
I guess you won't be convinced until the court overturns the new rules. I might as well be talking to my 8-year old. He ignores the facts almost like you do.
Adios,
Gib
What's the SAME about it?
The central issue is THE SAME.
Nope.
The consultation requirement is in the law
And the Constitution allows the President to determine how the consultation is done, and with whom. If the President says the consultation is now done within the departments, that satisfies the law to the extent Congress has the ability to write it.
not part of the administration-controlled enforcement rules
False. Any "consultation" is COMPLETELY and TOTALLY subject to the control of the administration.
The key phrase in the law is "best available scientific evidence".
And the President has the full and unfettered ability to determine what IS the best available scientific evidence, because he can tell any department, including FWS, what to do.
He ignores the facts almost like you do.
Yawn. You do not even UNDERSTAND the facts involved.