![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Scott Seidman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Thank god there's still a few Democrats on the federal bench. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/national/27dams.html? It's no wonder the Bush administration is fighting so hard to stack the courts with their ideologues. Republicans don't hold the copyright on environmental damage. This is the third time this particular NMFS analysis has been sent back by the courts-- the first two were during the Clinton Admin. Even though the analysis has been sent back three times the particulars have been different each time. One would expect that the third try would be better than the first two but according to the judge and those concerned with the fishery just the opposite is true. That is, the plan submitted by the Bush administration is worse for the fish than the ones submitted by the Clinton administration that had already been rejected. And to repeat my first sentence above, thank god there's still a few Democrats on the federal bench. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|