Pacific Legal Foundation writes a short piece on Judge Wanger’s ruling that I thought overstated the importance of the decision. But whatever. You can’t take anything you read on a blog seriously. This caught my eye, though:
Curious, I clicked over to see who PLF’s farming clients are. Stewart and Jasper? Oh hah hah hah ha ha ha hah hah ha hah hah!! HAH HAH hah hah ha hah ha ha HAhaha ha! Really? Haha haha hah hah HAHA ha ha!! The Stewart and Jasper bits were the funniest part of the decision. Judge Wanger resoundingly denies both of Stewart and Jasper’s bizarre claims on pages 196-200 (points C and D). Page 197, line 15: Steward and Jasper’s first claim, that FWS failed by not including an analysis of economic effects is “unsupported in law.” That’s not an obscure point, either. That was the whole point of the foundation case of ESA law: “such a conclusion is inconsistent with the purposes of the ESA under TVA v Hill. Greenpeace, 55 F. Supp. 2d at 1267” (lines 26-28).
Judge Wanger dismisses the next point that Stewart and Jasper raise with equal dispatch. (Page 198, line 8) “The Stewart & Jasper Plaintiffs raise a novel argument that” Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to be the boss of Reclamation, and that’s illegal. Judge Wanger is having none of it. He writes (page 199, lines 3-6): The law is clear that FWS has no such authority, nor can FWS, as consulting agency, act ultra vires to usurp the operational authority of the Bureau and DWR over the Projects.
Far as I can see, the Pacific Legal Foundation’s plaintiffs raised two crank points, both of which were summarily dispatched by a judge that sounds a little testy about them. If I were Pacific Legal Foundation, I wouldn’t be emphasizing my role in this case.