data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/72f14/72f141aef80e6b996908c5f4374b885c6c868afd" alt=""
These February rulings followed an anti-military ruling last November by the Ninth Circuit, which invited injunctions against the Navy to restrict its use of sonar. In NRDC v. Winter, the Ninth Circuit held that an "injunction would be appropriate" against the Navy to restrict its use of sonar. The Navy says it already minimizes risks to marine life and has used sonar for decades without seeing any injuries to whales. . . . So, chalk up another victory for enemies of our armed forces, internal and external. It seems that the anti-military leftists have picked up judicial activists as their allies.
Why should our Navy have to grovel to federal judges for permission to defend U.S. national security? Most of our Navy's activities are not even in the United States, and judges should not have the power to interfere with the Navy's protection of our national interests. . . . Judges in black robes should not be telling our generals and admirals what they cannot do, and federal courts should not be interfering with the Navy's duty to patrol the oceans. The Constitution did not make the federal judiciary our Commander in Chief. Environmentalists have no compunction about filing lawsuits to protect animals at the expense of national security. . .
Unaccountable federal judges should not be giving orders to the United States Navy as it tries to defend our freedoms. . . . It's time for Congress to assume responsibility to protect our national security by stripping the federal courts from jurisdiction over the U.S. Navy. . . . [Read More]
Tags: Activist Judges, environmentalists, federal judges, National Defense, Phyllis Schlafly, sonar, U.S. District Court, US Navy, whales To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
0 comments:
Post a Comment