Donald Molloy Maintains Judicial Integrity

Congress (0.00 / 0)

should be the decision maker?  Not science?

---

by: jhwygirl @ Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 00:31:50 AM UTC

If the Law is to be Changed, Congress Should Change It (0.00 / 0)

Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.

---

by: CharleyCarp @ Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 00:42:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Question (0.00 / 0)

What is it they have to change?  The Endangered Species Act?  Or is it some special clause just for wolves and (or) just for Montana, outside of the sound science behind the ESA?

I ask because when if it's outside of science - and purely politically driven - it's a dangerous road to go down.  A bad door to open any wider.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 23:57:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Wasn't Sure (0.00 / 0)

Not about this first ruling anyway.  As Judge Molloy observed at the hearing, he could find that there's a substantial issue, and then have the case returned to him for more briefing.  Given the schedule the current matter had been briefed, I thought he might go this route -- maybe give the proponents one more opportunity to address the legal issues, rather than, as it seemed at the hearing, spending their time talking about what a good deal it was and how hard they worked to reach it.

Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.

---

by: CharleyCarp @ Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 00:41:49 AM UTC

It would be remarkably helpful (0.00 / 0)

Having had these discussions more than just a few times, I've read a variation of the phrase 'let science decide' about a hundred times.  It would be remarkably helpful if even once someone would clarify exactly what legal agency Science occupies in our government.

Though I agree with JC that jhwygirl asks a good question, it is one that he doesn't bother to answer either.  As such, 'let science decide' simply stands as a nice buzz phrase to blame legislators for doing the job of legislating, making decisions, if you will.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 18:46:47 PM UTC

"Let science decide" is more than a "buzz word." (0.00 / 0)

There are administrative processes in environmental laws --ESA, NEPA, CWA, etc. -- that mandate agencies to use "the best available science" in making decisions that may affect the environment.  It is in statute and rule.

So, when Congress, or in this case a handful of nativist Western congressmen representing a small fraction of the citizens of the U.S., set out to change those laws written with explicit orders to follow science, how should they decide?  It goes to the question of the legitimacy of the legislative process, and the integrity of the legislators changing settled law.  To me, it seems reasonable that some input from scientists, or at least a thorough review of "the best available science" might play a role in the decision-making process. But no, we have a rider, and no hearing with a room full of disinterested scientists advising legislators.  No public comment, or panel of experts.  No reasoned debate, no public discussion really.  This is democracy on the ropes.  

---

by: steve kelly @ Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 23:03:02 PM UTC

Steve, (0.00 / 0)

I've pointed out to you before in discussions of wolves that the "best available science" already cleared Montana and Idaho to manage their own wolf populations.

At this point, 'let science decide' is precisely a buzz phrase, because science already decided.  It's just that some folks don't like the decision.  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 00:43:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Which scientists have weighed in, wulf? (0.00 / 0)

And to what degree did their science exceed their own economic or political prejudices?

---

by: Horst @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 14:05:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're not invoking science (0.00 / 0)

That's just politics, Horst.  Defend Science or don't.  You haven't here.  Your opinion doesn't affect the argument either way.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 22:52:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"...because science already decided." (0.00 / 0)

Bureaucrats decided.  Their interpretation of the data and the current body of scientific literature was the basis of their decision, which was a decision produced by an administrative process directed by statute and rule.

Agency bureaucrats are shown great deference by the courts. Their science is sometimes not good enough to pass legal muster. Sometimes even the court's great deference can't save their misuse, or misapplication, of "the science."  

You say "science already decided."  I would counter with the notion that to perceive science as a fixed star would be a mistake, however common.  Our understanding of wolf biology is changing as we speak.  

According to some scientists studying the cosmos, Pluto may have lost its "planet" status.  The Universe is constantly changing, and so is our understanding of the world around us.  The trick is to allow new information into the process.  

This is where Tester wants to end the scientific process for wolves.  And this is where I disagree with him most.  He has shown little respect for the scientific process -- or the democratic process.  That's serious in my opinion.

---

by: steve kelly @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 16:19:22 PM UTC

This is where you and I disagree. (0.00 / 0)

He has shown little respect for the scientific process -- or the democratic process.

Other than opinions online, I have yet to see anyone show that Jon Tester has little respect for science.  But even if I take that as a given, there is no evidence that he has little respect for democratic process.  I believe, and others have concurred, that this legislative effort was the next logical step in the process. It seems that was what even Molloy was saying in his earlier ruling and his ruling on the 8th.  It may be distasteful to people how he's gone about it, and the slippery slope argument concerning the ESA has teeth.  If you'll notice, those aren't points I argue.  In truth, they themselves are political ones.

I'm glad you used the term "scientific process", because it is more accurate than what I've used, and others in opposition.  That is what Science is, a process of investigation.  I would point out that even if Jon Tester is successful in his effort to get wolves delisted in Montana and Idaho, the scientific process doesn't end, just as it didn't end with a lawsuit.  For literally years, I have asking, pleading, cajoling and yes, goading, anyone online to recognize both the nature of science, and how they might be misapplying it just as badly as bureaucrats could possibly be doing.

I'll answer my own question.  Science, with a capital S, occupies no legal agency in our government.  None.  There is no Department of Science in the Executive branch that can overrule or supersede the Departments of the Interior or Agriculture.  There is no Congressional committee of Science that must review Tester's rider.  There is no court of Science that reviews the scientific underpinnings of legal challenge.  As laughable as those ideas might be, and as cluelessly earnest as JC's flailing against me is, I think it would be a better country if we did have those things.  We don't.  We won't.

So let's review what is.  14 organizations sued to stop the wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho, hunts that were authorized by the statutes in place for the control numbers involved (that would be the science).  They got what they wanted, a federal injunction and then a ruling which said that the hunts were illegal given the statutes and rules of the ESA.  They won, no doubts, but it wasn't a win of Science.  It was a win of bureaucracy.  The hunts stepped outside of the rules by isolating Wyoming.  The problem is that now they want to put on the breaks and say "Stop, that's enough, we need go no farther.  We Won.  WE WON!".  Sorry, that isn't the way things work in a democracy.  So now, Congresspeople in Idaho and Montana are looking to change the statutes such that Montana and Idaho be given the control that they had in the first place, and was ruled against statute by Molloy.  They want to change the statute, and the organizations that originally claimed victory are talking smack about how that's unfair.  No, it's completely fair, and they brought it into play because they challenged the bureaucracy instead of any of the science.  

I'm more than happy to be the bad guy who points that out, because I'm damned tired of being the guy who pointed out that would happen in the first place.  This isn't about the science, no matter how much the supposedly 'pro-wolf' folk claim that it is.  It was about the science when Montana and Idaho submitted rational and reasonable control plans, which I would add included scientific review and study of populations at the state level.  But now these organizations that brought suit have pissed on the toes of  giants, state and federal governments, and they are surprised when the giant pisses back.

If, and that's a big if, Tester's gambit to get wolves delisted is successful, the control plans that Idaho and Montana previously submitted won't likely hold sway, and may not be as generous to Science.  If, as has been posited, the blame lies with a Montana blogger who doesn't really understand or know anything about this and talks out of his ass, then I guess I'll just have to live with the guilt.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 21:38:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In respons to your comment (0.00 / 0)

---

by: JC @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 16:24:57 PM UTC

Again, in response to your comment (0.00 / 0)

over at 4&20: "JC makes no effort to answer it himself", in the argument we had back in March (which is the root of our onging battle) about this, you had this to say:

"Here's a fact.  Now that Molloy has ruled?  EJ has no legal standing, nor do any of it's clients.  That's not being technically correct, JC. It's being factually correct.  You and your organizations are meaningless until you throw your dollars at another lawsuit.  Do try to keep up with current events."

You accused me of being meaningless in a moment of arrogant misinformed rage.  You mistakenly assumed that MOlloy's ruling was the end of the case--it was not.

You don't understand the legal process and/or the facts surrounding it--you're just talking out your ass about all of this. The current Molloy ruling you are talking about in your current diary is part of that case, which you declared had ended--that neither Earth Justice, or the groups I work with have any standing. You were wrong then, and you remain wrong now.

I refuse to debate an issue with someone who 1) has arrogantly insulted me while misstating and misunderstanding the facts 2) is attempting to bully me into conducting the debate on his terms on my own turf 3) continually uses ad hominem attacks trying to make the argument about me, instead of the issue.

But  I will give you a simple reply to your comment: I  make no effort to answer the question, because I provided the reader with ample information, context and commentary to form their own conclusions.

So I'm done arguing wolf issues with you, try as you may to suck me into battle with continued insults, bullying and continually trying to one-up me on stupid things like how long you've been online. Grow up.  

---

by: JC @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 17:01:02 PM UTC

Funny that. (0.00 / 0)

You still haven't answered jhwygirl's question, nor my request for clarification.

Congress should be the decision maker, not science?

It would be remarkably helpful if even once someone would clarify exactly what legal agency Science occupies in our government.

And few things are more childish than attempting an argument and then telling the opponent how 'you're not going to argue about it anymore'.  That's the third time you've done that in the last week.  Grow up.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 19:03:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. (0.00 / 0)

We owe all of our allegiance to the people we have elected.

---

by: Horst @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 19:35:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe you do? n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 21:45:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please remove my account here (0.00 / 0)

I'm done with LitW. 3 1/2 years was a long enough time.

---

by: JC @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 19:55:40 PM UTC

No (0.00 / 0)

But I will lock the account out if you wish.  I won't delete it because that would delete all response to you from other authors.  That's not a call you get to make.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 20:39:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are such a humanitarian, wulf..! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Horst @ Wed Apr 20, 2011 at 20:44:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]