Posted on

Those Cute Little Guys

One of the first cases on the docket for the Supreme Court this session involves the dusky gopher frog, which is obviously neither the plaintiff nor the defendant, but nonetheless is a prime focus in this case.

This 3 inch long creature spends most of its life in underground burrows and tree stumps, but breeds in isolated ephemeral ponds. The private property in question in this case is  located in St Tammany’s Parish in Louisiana and has ephemeral ponds, which are low-lying areas that fill with water at certain times of the year — when the frog lays eggs — but then dry out. Because of that, the ponds can’t support fish, which would eat the eggs.

Basically, the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, designated more than 1,500 acres in Louisiana as a “critical habitat” for the dusky gopher frog’s future survival. The property in question is owned by a family which leases the property to Weyerhaeuser, the timber giant that harvests trees there, but also has development plans for the land. The wildlife service determined that the 1500 acre parcel was “restorable with reasonable effort” to support the dusky gopher frog . . . if it were to be transported there.

Now I wasn’t at the Supreme Court proceedings, but my source tells me that this is what went on . . . in general.

Initially, Justice Ginsburg questioned whether the company and the family that owns most of the land had yet suffered any loss that would make the case ripe for a Supreme Court decision. The Weyerhaeuser lawyer, Timothy Bishop responded that the government had estimated the land value could decline by $33 million if the government restrictions stand.

We pick it up just as it was Justice Elena Kagan’s turn to ask the questions.

Kagan: Are you familiar with the term “critical habitat? “                                              Bishop responded: Yes, your honor. And the law only allows the government to designate as critical habitat, lands where the species could now live.

Kagan: Yes, yes, I am aware of that. Are you implying that those cute little dusky gopher frogs do not live there now?                                                                             Bishop: Yes, I am your honor. In fact they haven’t lived there since 1965.

Kagan: Yes, yes, of course, I am aware of that, but those cute little guys do live close.            Bishop: Of course distance is always relative. As I am sure you are aware, the closest dusky gopher frog presently resides in Mississippi’s De Soto National Forest, about 50 miles from the property in question. I would also venture that you are aware that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has already designated 11 sites, 4,900 acres, in 11 different sites in Mississippi as critical habitats for this animal.

Kagan: Yes, I am aware of all that, but fifty miles is a relatively short distance. Perhaps we should just move the cute little buggers over there tomorrow.                                                                                              Bishop: With all due respect your honor, just about everybody agrees that, although the land has the ponds, it does not have other physical characteristics the gopher frogs need. As I am sure you are aware, the current tree canopy and ground cover are not conducive to the frog’s survival.

At this point it appeared to some that Justice Kagan had a tear on the right side of her face, making its way out from under her sunglasses, down her cheek, and onto her desk, where she had four snapshots of the dusky gopher frogs. From the side it appeared to some that her eyes were red. Was that why she was wearing her sunglasses inside?

Hesitantly, Justice Kagan continued: What if the land could be made habitable with reasonable alterations, so that we could save those cute little guys? “To my mind, it is a counterintuitive result that the statute would prefer extinction of the species to the designation of an area which requires only certain reasonable improvements in order to support the species.”

Justice Samuel Ailto Jr.: “This is not a question of whether the frogs will become extinct.” Alito continued, “The question is, who is going to have to pay, and who should pay for the preservation of this public good?”

Then Justice Roberts chimed in:  “If you permit the designation of something as critical habitat that cannot be occupied by the animal, because you think they can do something down the road that will cure the problem . . . you ought to be able to articulate what the limit is on what you require down the road.”

Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler, the government’s representative for the tiny dusky gopher frogs, appeared somewhat choked up when he replied that the improvements would have to be reasonable, but yet after he regained his composure, he was unable to come up with a time limit that would satisfy Roberts. Some in the room wondered why Mr. Kneedler was also wearing sunglasses.

Posted on

Schadenfreude(r)

“Schadenfreude” was my “word of the day” today. When I read the definition, I immediately thought about the Democratic Party, specifically the Democratic politicians. Before divulging the definition of “schadenfreude,” I do not want anyone to think that what I am about to say refers to all of those who consider themselves Democrats . . . it does not, but it does appear to be apropos to leftist Democrats. (I am sure that there are many Democrats to whom this noun does not apply, but it’s just that sometimes I have difficulty immediately identifying them.)
“Schadenfreude” is a noun that means: “satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else’s misfortune.” (And to go on record right from the git-go, “No, I could not initially pronounce this word!”) Obviously, my immediate connection is to the Democratic Senators who appear to be feeling immense “satisfaction or pleasure at someone else’s misfortune,” namely Judge Brett Kavanaugh. The reason for their posturing on this matter is so obviously political that it is insulting that they think that us ordinary folk do not see through their charade. Schadenfreuders!
Apparently one of the reasons that the Democrat Senators oppose him is that they fear his views on abortion. BTW: Who suffers from abortions? Duh, it’s the unborn fetus . . . the unborn fetus that may even have a recognizable heartbeat! Do those politicians who support abortion feel “satisfaction or pleasure at someone else’s misfortune?” . . . namely the misfortune of the fetus. No matter what your political leanings, stop and think about that for a second. Would you agree that with regard to abortion, the Democrats are schadenfreuders?
This term is not limited to politicians, but can also be applied to liberal non-politicians in Washington. For example, on  the first day of the present cases before the Supreme Court, liberal Justice Ginsberg appeared to be “pooh-poohing” a potential $33 million loss for a family on their property’s value because of a frog! Schadenfreuder?
 
Are there any other examples of the word association of “schadenfreude” not associated with national Democratic politicians? (“Is the Pope a Catholic?”) The other obvious present day example, here in California, is the recently passed Democratic gas tax that supposedly will pay for infrastructure. (According to a recent article in The American Spectator, “California does not have enough money to improve our infrastructure or anything else because it spends far above market wages for its government employees. No wonder California road costs are around 2.5 times higher than the national average.”)
Who will end up paying this tax that will cost the typical family of four $779.28 more per year in taxes? Will it be the elites that own Teslas? “No!” Will it be the more affluent that can can afford other electric cars or hybrids? “Hardly!” Are the California Democratic politicians aware of this? “Absolutely!” Schadenfreuders!
I can hardly wait until my word of the day comes tomorrow!
Posted on

“Net Neutrality” . . . Federal or State ?

California’s version of “net neutrality” was just signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. To be honest I do not understand the ins-and-outs of “net neutrality,” but from what I do understand, this new California law forbids internet service providers from blocking websites, intentionally slowing down a website or app or accepting payments to make online services go faster. When I first read this, I thought that it was a reasonable idea. It would protect consumers from the potentially unscrupulous internet service providers. “Three cheers for the little guy!”

However, in an attempt to understand this topic better, I did some research, as the background is always important.  In 2015 the FCC under Obama adopted similar regulations. However last year the FCC led by Trump’s choice, Amit Pai, undid these prior regulations.
Jeff Sessions, the U.S. Attorney General, said that the Federal Government, and not the states, should oversee the internet. Mr. Pai added, “The internet is inherently an interstate information service. As such only the federal government can set policy in this area.” In addition, Mr. Pai stated that in rolling back Obama-era rules, the FCC preempted any state rules. This, of course made no difference to the California politicians. The gauntlet was thrown down, and apparently nobody can dare to tell the Democratic California’s Legislature what to do!
After Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill, California’s Attorney General, Xavier Becerra predictably chimed in, “Today marks a true win for the internet and for an open society.”
After this California net-neutrality bill was signed into law, the Justice Department responded almost immediately with a lawsuit seeking to overturn the new California law. Again Xavier Becerra predictably whined something derogatory about President Trump, as he wanted to make sure that everyone was aware that he was “fighting” for the people of California, especially in view of his upcoming Senate election. (God help us! Can you imagine anything worse than having Becerra and Kamala Harris as your Senators?)
And so another chapter of the ongoing battle between California and the Trump administration. Even though I am tending to agree with California’s “net neutrality” position, the internet is clearly under the auspices of the federal government.
In the real world this is just another reason why the Democrats are attacking Judge
Brett Kavanaugh. This “net neutrality” lawsuit, as well as many other California-Trump lawsuits, will inevitably make its way to the Ninth Circuit Court, before going to the Supreme Court. As we all know the Ninth Circuit will rule on favor of California, and without a ninth Supreme Court Justice, it will be 4-4, and so the decision of the Ninth Circuit will stand! OMG!
Posted on

Common Sense and the Lesser of Two Evils

Over the years I have been critical of California’s Jerry Brown on multiple occasions. As most of you are aware, the legislature in California is far-left, and today I find myself being thankful that Governor Brown is not far-left, but only left of center (the lesser of two evils!). The California Legislature had recently finished its term and sent multiple bills to the Governor’s desk for signing. In my estimation he seemed to display some common sense when deliberating whether or not to sign bills into law.

He did sign a number of bills restricting gun ownership, and I actually agreed with him on these restrictions. He restricted rifle ownership to those less than twenty-one years of age, exempting members of the military, law enforcement, and hunters. (Handgun ownership for those less than twenty-one is already restricted in California). In addition he signed bills that restricted gun ownership by those with certain psychiatric issues as well as those with a history of domestic violence. Sounds like common sense to me.

He vetoed a bill that would have mandated later start times for high school throughout the state, saying that the local school districts should manage their own start times. Sounds like common sense to me.

In a similar vein he also vetoed a bill that would have allowed “medical marijuana” on school campuses! Whew!! Who is this guy?

He also vetoed a bill that would have let bars in certain cities serve alcohol till 4a.m., saying, “there already is enough mischief from midnight till 2a.m. without adding two more hours of mayhem.” Sounds like common sense to me.

Brown vetoed SB-174, which would have made California the first state in the country to allow non-citizens, both legal residents and those in the country illegally, to serve on local and state boards and commissions that now require citizenship. In his veto message Brown said, “This bill would open up all boards and commissions to non-citizens. I believe existing law – which requires citizenship for these forms of public service – is the better path,” Again, sounds like common sense to me.                                     This veto is similar to one in 2013, in which he  vetoed a bill that would have allowed non-citizens who are legal residents to serve on juries.  Brown said at the time: “Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship.” Another common sense line of reasoning.

He also vetoed a bill which sought to prohibit immigration authorities from making arrests inside courthouses — a key point of contention between California officials and the Trump administration. Brown wrote in his veto message that he supports the intent of the bill but worries it may have unintended consequences. He did not elaborate, but said he wants to wait until the state attorney general publishes model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement in courthouses, which is required under legislation Brown signed last year. This veto sounded like a “pass the buck down the road” hedge.

However, to demonstrate some solidarity with immigrants, Brown signed another bill that decriminalized sidewalk vending, a business popular with many immigrants. I have no problem with this one.

However, Governor Brown is being termed out, and there is a high likelihood that far-left Gavin Newsome will be the next governor of California. I bet that unlike Jerry Brown, Governor Newsome will be rubber stamp for the next set of the still far-left legislature’s cockamamie ideas. OMG!

In retrospect, Governor Brown may turn out to be the lesser of two evils.