Dennis Paulson, the political wizard, writes:

>Call Patty Murray's office (202-224-2621) and assure her you support her
>strong stand against the "logging without laws" rider.

>I have no more information about this, just passing on Senator Murray's
>phone number.

I second that, especially if she represents you (I'll be calling
someone else :)

One bit of good news, though: the US Supreme Court overturned the
1st District's ruling in the "Sweet Home" case.

To refresh your memory, this was the suit filed back east (to get
away from the 9th Circuit) claiming that USF&W had no authority
to dictate habitat setasides on private land, because the word
"harm" as used in the ESA was only meant to include direct harm.
In other words, if one cuts down a forest and carefully avoids
actually killing a spotted owl, the fact that you've removed it's
habitat and that it will die anyway is irrelevant. You've not
harmed it, just removed it's house.

Or, so they argued. 1st Circuit bought it (Reagan appointees).

In the hearing Justice pointed out that Congress clearly intended
"harm" to include habitat destruction, as amendments to the bill
were passed after the first ESA went through which clarified
some specific kinds of habitat modification which as being within
the realm of "harm".

You'd think it's cut and dried, no?

Scalia doesn't think so, he made it clear that in his view "harm"
meant direct destruction and gave anectdotes from his youth to
back it up.

Supreme court overruled (i.e. said "harm" includes habitat destruction)
6-3. The report I heard this AM on NPR didn't list the three turkeys
who voted to sustain, but surely Scalia and Thomas were two of the
votes. That was a given. I'm curious as to who the third turd
was.

Nah, this ain't about birds, but it ain't in limerick form, either,
so bear with!


- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>