You Are Among The Elite!

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

The 9th Circuit Does It Again

This is laughable. For those that don't know, the 9th Circuit is in California, and is the most overturned court in the land because of their super-liberal rulings that defy any and all logic.

This story is one that has been going on for years. Some basic warfighting info:

We have warships, most notably are the aircraft carriers that prowl the world's oceans 24/7 and are the center of battle groups. U.S. Navy carriers and their aircraft are how we project power around the world, and when trouble looms a battle group sets sail for the area. Included in this battle group is a Regimental Landing Team of Marines who accompany these groups in a variety of amphibious ships. These Marines are cooped up on ship for six month cruises, and are more than happy to make a landing and carry out their warfighting skills.

So, we project power with these forces. The enemy wants to sink them. The best way to do so since the 1940's has been with submarines. The U.S. has had the premier submarine force in the world for decades. It is said that even U.S. Navy submarines can't find other U.S. Navy submarines because they are so quiet, but other countries have gotten Soviet technology and Clinton allowed other countries to get our technology.

You detect subs by either passive listening methods, or by the use of sonar. Sonar sends a noise under water, which bounces back off a hull of a ship or submarine. Since subs are so quiet, we rely on sonar to protect our ships. Can you imagine an entire batallion of Marines dying from a torpedo launched from a sub? How about a sub launching a cruise missile and sinking a $100 billion aircraft carrier and killing 2,000 men? Can you imagine how damaging our ability to project power would be without these forces? No one fears our diplomats; they do fear a division of Marines landing on their beaches.

The environmental wackos are out in force in California. They have sued, AND WON, to make the Navy stop using sonar because it "hurts the whales". Yes, a court of jurists has decided that the keeping a whale from being injured is more important than the security of our nation.

Really. If it weren't so serious, I would be having a laughing attack about now. Anyone else want to tell me that liberals are as patriotic as the rest of us?

22 Posts From Readers:

Middle Class Guy said...

1.) I do not think that the Court has authority beyond the sea limits of the US.

2.) How is this going to be enforced? Who is going to stop the USN from using SONAR?

This ruling is not only riduculous on its face, but it is a perfect example of environMENTALism gone wild.

Shaw said...

Right. One court in California speaks for all liberals?

Okay. By that logic, Ron Paul, who is running for president as a Republican, means he represents all conservatives.

That's your logic, not mine.

The liberals in my family?

2 Marines: One (passed) who fought in Korea, another in Viet Nam.

One Naval officer who was on the USS Wasp, and several others who were seamen.

Two relatives who served in Gulf War I (one was a bird colonel).

One young relative who recently joined the army and is now in basic training.

And yes. We are as patriotic as the rest of you. One court in one part of the country does not mean all liberals.

Do you really need to be told that?

Sheesh.

Shaw said...

And here are more details of the liberals who served their country and the conservatives who did not:

Prominent Democrats

Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) -- rifle platoon and company commander with the Fifth Marine Regiment in the An Hoa Basin west of Danang; was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Star Medals, and two Purple Hearts.

Representative Tim Walz, D-MN - Twenty-four years of service in the Army National Guard, retiring in 2005.

Representative Joe Sestak, D-PA - 31 years of service in the Navy, rising to the rank of Vice Admiral.

Representative Chris Carney, D-PA - Lieutenant Commander in the United States Naval Reserve, Carney served multiple tours overseas and was activated for Operation Enduring Freedom, Noble Eagle, and Southern Watch.

Representative Patrick Murphy, D-PA - extensive career in the U.S. Army from 1993-2004; earned Bronze Star and Presidential Unit Citation.

Representative Phil Hare, D-IL - Served in the United States Army Reserve for six years.

Representative Jack Murtha (D-PA) - distinguished 37-year career in the U.S. Marine Corps, Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, retired from the Marine Corps Reserve as a colonel in 1990. (1)

Former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt - Missouri Air National Guard, 1965-71. (1, 2)

Representative David Bonior - Staff Sgt., United States Air Force 1968-72 (1, 2)

Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle - 1st Lt., U.S. Air Force SAC 1969-72

Former Vice President Al Gore - enlisted August 1969; sent to Vietnam January 1971 as an army journalist, assigned to the 20th Engineer Brigade headquartered at Bien Hoa, an airbase twenty miles northeast of Saigon.

Senator Daniel Inouye, US Army 1943-'47; Medal of Honor, World War Two

Senator John Kerry, Lt., U.S. Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three awards of the Purple Heart for his service in combat (1)

Representative Charles Rangel, Staff Sgt., U.S. Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea (1, 2)

Former Senator Max Cleland, Captain, U.S. Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam (1, 2)
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953. (1)

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) - Lt., U.S. Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74. (1, 2)

Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) - U.S. Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91 (1)

MC2 Michael Perez said...

Hello,
My name is Petty Officer Michael Perez, and I saw your blog posting. I thought I would just add some additional information on the Navy’s perspective on this issue. The Navy issued the following news release regarding the court decision:

November 13, 2007

Navy Buoyed by Appeals Court Ruling

PEARL HARBOR – Navy officials said they are optimistic that a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today ordered a lower court to rewrite restrictions on the Navy’s use of sonar in certain Southern California exercises

The Navy had asked the appeals court to overturn a preliminary injunction that was granted by a U.S. district judge on Aug. 6, 2007, that bars the Navy from using active sonar in certain multi-ship exercises off Southern California through January 2009. That injunction was granted in a lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental and animal protection groups. In over 40 years of sonar training in the Southern California Operating Area, no stranding or injury of a marine mammal has been associated with the Navy’s use of sonar.

“We are encouraged that the appeals court found the original injunction was too broad and ordered the district court to tailor mitigation conditions under which the Navy may conduct its training,” said Navy spokesman Capt. Scott Gureck.

Whenever sonar is used in large exercises, the Navy employs 29 separate marine mammal protective measures, which were coordinated with and approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

“There’s no scientific proof that sonar by itself has ever directly killed or injured whales or other marine mammals,” Gureck said.

Adm. Robert Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, said: “The use of sonar is a fundamental principle in anti-submarine warfare. It is very, very important that our Sailors are proficient in applications of active sonar and in their ability to hunt submarines. It’s a perishable skill. If we don't practice it a lot we are not going to be good at it. With the proliferation of very quiet diesel submarines throughout the world, and particularly here in the Pacific, it's very important to me that our ships, submarines and our Sailors have this skill.”

Read the full article at http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=33265
For more information, see http://www.whalesandsonar.navy.mil/

Shaw said...

And conservatives who did not serve or wiggled out of combat duty:

Prominent Republicans

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY - did not serve

Senate Assistant Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-MI - avoided the draft, did not serve.

Senate Republican Conference Chairman Jon Kyl, R-AZ - did not serve.

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair John Ensign, R-NV - did not serve.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-OH - did not serve.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-MO - did not serve.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani - did not serve.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney - did not serve in the military but did serve the Mormon Church on a 30-month mission to France.

Former Senator Fred Thompson - did not serve.

Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey - avoided the draft, did not serve.

Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve. "So many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself."

Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - did not serve.

Rick Santorum, R-PA, formerly third ranking Republican in the Senate - did not serve. (1)

George Felix Allen, former Republican Senator from Virginia - a supporter of Nixon and the Vietnam war, did not serve.

VP Cheney - several deferments the last by marriage (in his own words, "had other priorities than military service") (1)

Former Att'y Gen. John Ashcroft - did not serve; received seven deferment to teach business ed at SW Missouri State

Jeb Bush, Florida Governor - did not serve.

Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve, too busy being a Republican.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve.

Former President Ronald Reagan - due to poor eyesight, served in a noncombat role making movies for the Army in southern California during WWII. He later seems to have confused his role as an actor playing a tail gunner with the real thing.

Phil Gramm - avoided the draft, did not serve, four student deferments

heidianne jackson said...

wow, shaw, such animosity. robert didn't say anything about democrats, he said liberals. not all democrats are liberals, but all liberals are democrats (at least as far as i can tell).


where is your list of republicans who have served? or are you positing that there are none? where is yor list of democrats who either did not serve or managed to "wiggle out of combat duty"? or are you positing that there are none?

there are both on both sides and you know it, but chose not to be fair. any implication that someone holds the moral ground because he or she has served - in combat or not - is ridiculous. any implication that someone is not worth listening to because he or she hasn't served - in combat or not - is also ridiculous.

anyone who has served has my grattitude. anyone who thinks i have to agree with everything he (or she) says because he/she served is sadly mistaken.

i would agree that anyone who has served must have patriotic stirrings. i would also propose that just because someone has served doesn't make him a true patriot.

imho, a true u.s. patriot is one who supports his president even when he doesn't agree with all of its policies. a true u.s. patriot is one who is always working for the betterment of the country and state within the framework of the constitutions - federal and state. a true u.s. patriot is one who would never denounce the military - regardless of politics.

we all know that not all liberals are moonbats, however, show me a moonbat and i guarantee you he/she will be a liberal.

rockync said...

Shouldn't they at least have to produce the proof that sonar hurts marine mammals?

As Petty Officer Michael Perez points out in his comment.

“There’s no scientific proof that sonar by itself has ever directly killed or injured whales or other marine mammals,” Gureck said."

Shaw said...

"imho, a true u.s. patriot is one who supports his president even when he doesn't agree with all of its policies."


So you would define a patriot as someone who supports a president when that patriot doesn't agree with him?

Really?

Would you support a president who disregards the Constitution and breaks the law?

My allegiance is to the Constitution, not the head of a political party.

We are a nation of laws not men.

And yes, I was upset when Robert characterized liberals as not as patriotic as "the rest of us." He's wrong. And he's prejudiced.

All of the people in my family I mentioned who served their country were proudly liberals. Not just Democrats.

You guys have spent years demonizing the word "liberal." Where's it gotten you?

24%.

That's where.

Robert (Conservative Commentary) said...

Shaw, even Susan Estrich will tell you that the 9th Circuit is the msot liberal minded court in this country. I like that fact that you bring a counter opinion here and can civilly discuss the issues of the day. I am, however, becoming frustrated because you are so obtuse as to not be able to distinguish a colloquial phrase from a literal assertion.

The 9th Circuit rules along the most liberal lines of any court. They are the very stereotype of liberalism, because they never met an extremist cause that they didn't publish an opinion to support.

I have known a thousand military personnel and in very few cases have known their personal politics. I find it quite unpatriotic to support some idiotic left wing animal rights cause that places our military in a position where they cannot practice measure designed to not only protect themselves but to cary out the international policies of the United States.

At Camp Pendleton in California, Marines are not allowed to dig defensive positions during maneuvers ON THE BASE because the Sierra Club sued to stop it from happening. They said it caused erosion. I can see where that is in our national interest above the need for Marines to establish defensive positions to protect themselves and cary out their mission.

If you do not support these absurd positions, then I applaud your ability to reason. If the shoe does fit, then wear it. I noticed that you don't normally comment on the post themselves, but seem to base your thoughts entirely on the "but you do it too" approach.

Your list of noteables who did and did not serve do nothing but take up space. Vietnam was over more than 30 years ago, and I wish libs would get over it. I am a combat veteran of the Marines. My brother and I were in the same unit and never more than 100 yards apart. My wife didn't serve, but she is as patriotic as I. Military service does not determine patriotism, love of country and supporting her interests does.

I did not agree with President Clinton about going into Bosnia. I did not agree with President Clinton about leaving Somalia. I did not agree with the Reagan administration's position to deny Marines ammunition in fear of civilian casualties when that decision led to the inability to stop a suicide bomber at the Marine Barracks in Lebanon.

I supported their decisions to do so, and did not call for their impeachment.

PO Perez, welcome to my place and thank you for your service. Please stop by whenever you please.

Middle Class Guy, the same goes out to you. Welcome and I hope you drop by more often!

heidianne jackson said...

"Would you support a president who disregards the Constitution and breaks the law?"

on more than one ocassion already and i'm certain i will do so again. i can contest the policies without demeaning the person or the position.

Conservative Chic said...

Great post Robert, The idiocy of the 9th circuit is abounding and they have become nothing but a joke. Their rulings are overturned because intelligent minds and common sense prevail.

Perez- thank you for the additional information.

Shaw - I usually don't mind mixing words with you, but if you find fault with something, let it be with the post (not that there is any) and not "wording" that really doesn't have anything to do with the point he was trying to make.

I have nothing but disdain for the 9th circuit, every ruling more absurd than the next!

American Interests said...

"Can you imagine an entire batallion of Marines dying from a torpedo launched from a sub? How about a sub launching a cruise missile and sinking a $100 billion aircraft carrier and killing 2,000 men"?

I don't want to imagine it and quite frankly, if it were to happen, I'd lose it and then the world would know it...I haven't started my crusade yet, just fumbling on the sidelines...

The wacko's piss me off. I cannot help but be forthright here!

Top post!

Shaw said...

shaw asked heidianne:

"Would you support a president who disregards the Constitution and breaks the law?"


heidianne jackson answered...

"on more than one ocassion already and i'm certain i will do so again. i can contest the policies without demeaning the person or the position."

Okay. Got it. You would support a president...no, wait, according to your answer, you HAVE supported and will continue to support a president who disregards the Constitution and breaks the law.

In my question to you, I said nothing about policies, nor demeaning the office of the president.

I've come to understand that: people post here, make statements, I contest or make an argument based on those statements, then the folks here say I take them "too literally."

How else am I supposed to understand what you guys are saying except by believing the words you write. I can't hear your tone of voice nor see your facial expressions--and I certainly don't know your backgrounds to "know where you're coming from."

I can know you only by the words you post.

heidieanne just posted that she has supported and will continue to support a president who would disregard the Constitution and break the law.

I don't know what to make of that. Except, perhaps, heidieanne is okay with criminality in the White House, so long as we "respect" the office.

Jenn, it is the "wording" that makes the post. How else do you compose your thoughts in this venue except through typing "words." You're telling me to disregard the words that express the ideas? Huh?

Robert posted these words: "Anyone else want to tell me that liberals are as patriotic as the rest of us?"

That upset me because he cast aspersions on not only my patriotism, but the patriotism of the people in my family who served this country, the people in my family who fly the American flag, who vote in elections, and who support our troops.

The Bush administration and SOME, not all, conservatives believe only they are patriots, and slander anyone who they think is being unpatriotic because they don't think like them.

It's wrong. Karl Rove has done a fine job of dividing us and making us believe Americans who are not liberal or conservative are the enemy.

It's horrible. And it wasn't always like this.

Robert (Conservative Commentary) said...

I have yet to hear your position on the ruling by the 9th circuit.

Robert (Conservative Commentary) said...

Shaw, Jenn was referring to the same thing I mentioned. you gave us a huge list of dems who are veterans and republican who aren't. It had nothing to do with the point of my post about liberal causes and the choice of priorities. Yet in all of your bluster about being offended you haven't given your position on this court ruling.

The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

I nominate Shaw for the ninth , he would fit right in!

This court is the worst in the land and proves it with every ruling.

A stat that does not get talked about much is that the ninth has had more rulings over turned by SCOTUS than any other court and most of them combined!

Shaw said...

Yet in all of your bluster about being offended you haven't given your position on this court ruling.--Robert

Okay. After doing some reading about the ruling I've decided that the ruling hasn't exposed this country to immediate danger, that the end of the world is not at hand, and that you left out some relevant facts in this story.

In fact, it was the 9th Circut Court that lifted the temporary injunction that was put in place by a US district judge in LA and which the 9th District Court found "too broad."

"U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper had issued a temporary injunction forbidding the Navy from training with sonar off Southern California until she could hear the merits of a case brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups.

The Navy appealed her decision and won a reprieve from the 9th Circuit Court. Tuesday's ruling restored the original court decision..."

"The panel [9th District Court] ordered the judge [Cooper] to narrow the injunction to allow the Navy to increase its safeguards and proceed with training exercises that military officials say are needed to certify sailors as battle-ready.

Both the Navy and environmental attorneys claimed some measure of victory in the ruling."

Robert did not mention this very salient fact: "The order allows the Navy to continue its current exercises, but will force the Pentagon to devise ways to ensure that marine mammals are not harassed or injured by powerful sonic blasts during a series of training missions slated to begin in January."

"I believe the Navy and whales can peacefully coexist."

http://tinyurl.com/2vj6uy

Robert (Conservative Commentary) said...

I left out nothing relevant. I left out details, but nothing relevant.

Here is the relevant issue:

The 9th Circuit could have ended this case entirely, but chose not to.

Now MY hard earned dollars are being used to defend the defense of our nation.

Some would prefer that we have Chinese or Korean subs off the coast of California instead of hurt the ears of a few whales, which I would point out use sonar themselves.

That makes sense to you?

Shaw said...

"The environmental wackos are out in force in California. They have sued, AND WON, to make the Navy stop using sonar because it "hurts the whales". Yes, a court of jurists has decided that the keeping a whale from being injured is more important than the security of our nation.--Robert


The Navy was NOT stopped from using sonar and NOT stopped from continuing their underwater sonar blasts in anti-submarine warfare tests off Southern California.

You call that a "detail?" I call it a fact and that fact directly contradicts what you posted above.

The court could NOT end this case entirey, as you suggest, since laws must be obeyed, and the environmental laws of the state of California impel the court to consider the impact that the Navy's testing has on marine life.

The people of California, through their duly elected representatives in the state legislature, passed laws to protect the marine wildlife off the coast of California. This is how a democracy works.

In a military dictatorship, q.v., Pakistan, duly elected representatives of the people and the laws they enact are disregarded, and the military has ascendency above all else.

We here in America don't like that sort of power vested wholly in the military.

Let the Navy, the environmentalists and the laws of California sort this out in a democratic way.

This is a Constituional process. Why do you hate it?

Petty Officer Michael Perez said...

This has turned into a very serious debate, I thought I would just add two things from my side of the house.

1st - We have a creed we say
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me"
I won't further dwell on this statement, but please take it as food for thought.

2nd - While I personally feel protecting the environment is important, I wish some environmentalists would take this passion and redirect it at people dumping plastics and garbage along our coasts. There is at least proof that that is happening. Plus, It's hard to protect our coasts when people make our jobs so hard to do.

Thank you for your consideration. I appreciate all of your points of view.

Robert (Conservative Commentary) said...

First and foremost, there was a temporary restraining order resticting the navy from deploying a towed array sonar system. Read the original injunction if you can stay awake that long...it is something like 70 pages I think.

The case was in the 9th Circuit Appeals Court, which is a federal court. At that level the court can dismiss a case entirely, uphold part and dismiss part, send all or part of it back to the court of original jurisdiction (which is what happened) or uphold the ruling in it's entirety. The court could have quashed the injunction but chose not to do so.

Obob said...

this is for the young lady shaw ... liberals are godless, unpatriotic, chablis sipping, tree hugging, and ... I just being a twit.
back to reality here. This is joke of a ruling. It will be overturned and further discredit the 9th.
And sonar doesn't hurt whales, Japanese harpoons do.
and to add something that Petty Officer Perez interjected about the plastics. I understand there is an island of plastics growing in the horse latitudes in the middle of the Pacific.

Other Stuff