Dubya says "No More Hunting"....

[JoseCuervo]

Sounds like Dubya is appointing another Judge that is just as friendly to hunting and fishing as himself.....

Bush poised to push anti-environmental judge Email this page Print this page
Posted: February 07, 2005
by: Jean Johnson / Indian Country Today


Analysis

PORTLAND, Ore. - So far the federal courts have managed to overturn at least some of the Bush administration's attempts to undermine the environmental gains of the past four decades. If the president succeeds in getting the Senate to appoint William G. Myers to the 9th District Court, though, the system of checks and balances that normally keeps the government in a relatively moderate position will be severely tested - at the very least in Idaho, where Myers will sit on the bench for life if appointed. The 9th Circuit Court has jurisdiction over 75 percent of all federal land in the nine western states where oil, coal, mining, grazing and timber interests refer to green: that means cash.

President Bush tried to get Myers through last year, but the Democrats filibustered and the slim Republican majority couldn't push the controversial nomination through. Since the elections last fall, all that's changed and thus Myer's chances of winning approval have increased substantially. More, Republican extremists are trying to ban the 200-year tradition of the filibuster, the venerable tool that prevents narrow majorities from abusing power.

In 2004, however, when Myers was up before the Senate the first time, papers across the country were full of condemnation. They fingered Myers for calling the Clean Water Act ''regulatory excess'' and branding Diane Feinstein's, D-Calif., California Desert Protection Act as ''legislative hubris.'' The Arizona Daily Star editorial summed up the feelings by stating that Myer's ''chief qualification for the job rests not in his legal acumen but in the fact that his anti-environmental views match those of the president.'' The paper went on to state: ''Myers is a particularly bad choice for this position and should be rejected.''

Myers has never served as a judge of any court, and he has not had a lot of judicial experience. In 2004, when asked to discuss 10 significant cases in which he had been involved, he could only list a few. Throughout most of the 1990s, the 48-year-old attorney was first a lobbyist for the mining industry and then worked for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association as executive director of the organization's so-called Public Lands Council. In 2001, Bush tapped Myers as the chief lawyer for the Interior Department, where he served until his resignation in 2003. A majority of the American Bar Association committee that rates Senate appointees withheld the ''highly qualified'' ranking from Myers, and a large minority of the 15-member group did not join in even acquiescing on a ''qualified'' label.

John Kerry, of course, opposed Myers' nomination in 2004 along with the National Congress of American Indians and countless environmental organizations across the country. But according to Bushgreenwatch.org, the group that tracks the ''Bush administration's environmental misdeeds,'' Bush is running a number of nominations - that, like Myers, were rejected last year - through again with the knowledge that this time Republican numbers in the Senate are powerful enough to get his appointees through.

Key questions asked by those against a Myers nomination revolve around whether someone who has spent their career on advocacy of the most strident flavor is suited as a federal judge. In particular, Myers has showed himself to share the ideology of Western private property activists, a group dubbed the ''sagebrush rebellion'' in the 1980s. Moreover, while solicitor for the Interior Department, Myers was responsible for allowing a foreign-owned goldmine onto Quechan tribal land in California, a decision he made unilaterally without undertaking the government-to-government consultation with the tribe that all federal agencies are bound by. His decision was later overturned by a federal judge who pointed out that the regulation Myers cited in support of the activity had been written to prevent degradation of the land, something a gold mine clearly would not do.

Even as he's known for his conservative views, pundits say the man, who earned his J.D. at the University of Denver in 1981, is sharp and knows the law, particularly as it applies to natural resources and the American West.

Nonetheless, critics have a field day with Myers rhetoric. He has compared the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone to the British forcing colonists to shelter soldiers. He brandies about thinly-veiled threats about how a revolution of gun-toting ranchers from the West is not out of the realm of possibility if his constituency continues to suffer what it thinks is oppression under the elitist environmental agenda. Indeed, Myers compared federal environmental regulations to King George's tyrannical rule over the colonies.

A February 2004 New York Times article published when Myers was up for nomination the first time quotes from both sides of the aisle in order to inject balance into the debate. From Senator Larry Craig, R-Idaho, came the message that ''Mr. Myers's critics 'purposely confuse the roles of a lawyer and a judge.''' And from Senator Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., the words that Myers ''has dedicated most of his career to advocating for mining and cattle industry interests that opposed laws protecting the environment.''

Clearly, Myers does not have a mind that appreciates ecological relationships and values long-term environmental sustainability. His cavalier record of favoring industry over the environment and the rights of American Indians is alarming. Nonetheless, under the president's auspices, Myers appears to resonate with the current political climate of the nation. If the Senate approves his nomination, he could sit on the bench for as long as 20 years, ensuring that his opinions - what a Los Angeles Times editorial termed ''caustic and extremist'' - are heard long after the Bush administration recedes from public view.

 

[ringer]

EG-If Feinstein and the LA Times are against him then I am for him. If you think the 9th doesn't need balancing after the string of whacko decisions they have made then you are truly a man of the left regardless of your claims of being a republican. I am sure you must support the 9th's ruling on the USO vs AZ lawsuit as it has done so much for the average hunter in the west. Maybe the pledge ruling also was in keeping with your philosophy. Bush definitely sees the need to put a conservative on that court and I bet by far the majority of hunters would support that. Go ahead and call me a fat assed drunk but that is my opinion.

 

[Ithaca 37]

ringer, you can't be serious! This nut is a full fledged crackpot. "He has compared the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone to the British forcing colonists to shelter soldiers. He brandies about thinly-veiled threats about how a revolution of gun-toting ranchers from the West is not out of the realm of possibility if his constituency continues to suffer what it thinks is oppression under the elitist environmental agenda. Indeed, Myers compared federal environmental regulations to King George's tyrannical rule over the colonies."

 

[BigHornRam]

Myers said this?

"Nonetheless, critics have a field day with Myers rhetoric. He has compared the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone to the British forcing colonists to shelter soldiers."

Sounds like a good judge to me!

 

[ringer]

Like I said he sounds like a good one for the 9th to me. Offsets one of the communists.

 

[Rogue 6]

Ithica,
You sold me. I like him.

 

[feclnogn]

Dubya says "No More Hunting"....

Gunner I read the article and could not find the part where it stated Bush was going to end hunting. Could you point this out for me?? Or more likely did you just pull this catchy little gem out of your ass and apply it this enviro goof ball article???

Sounds like a good guy to me.

 

[BuzzH]

Fecl,

Try this on for size:

"Myers ''has dedicated most of his career to advocating for mining and cattle industry interests that opposed laws protecting the environment.''

When was the last time you saw a rancher or miner who really gave a shit about my PUBLIC lands and my PUBLIC wildlife?