From yesterday's Los Angeles Times:
Environmental activists won a major victory Wednesday when a judge declared that the U.S. Department of Energy continues to violate federal law in its cleanup of nuclear and chemical contamination at Boeing's Rocketdyne field laboratory near Simi Valley.
U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti also barred the DOE from transferring ownership of its Santa Susana property until it conducts a more thorough environmental review of its cleanup operations at the former nuclear and rocket engine testing facility.
The most interesting part of the article is not the ruling, which may or may not be wise/prudent/an overreaction, etc.; the most interesting portion is the quotes from the usual suspects who use every opportunity to claim that the "powers that be" intentionally want to pollute the groundwater, poison the air and otherwise ensure we all die because, apparently, somehow the "powers that be" don't drink water or breathe air:
"The Bush administration was trying to cut corners at the expense of public health, and the judge wasn't having any of it," said James Birkelund, a Los Angeles-based attorney for the lead plaintiff, the Natural Resources Defense Council.
I.e., it's all Bush's fault (isn't everything?).
***
... Daniel Hirsch, president of the anti-nuclear group Committee to Bridge the Gap, a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit, said that nowhere in the 47-page ruling did the judge side with the DOE, and by extension the property owner, Boeing, which purchased the field lab 11 years ago.
"What the judge is essentially saying to the DOE is: 'You guys have really fouled up this cleanup; you've broken the law repeatedly. And I'm going to retain jurisdiction until I'm satisfied that you've met your obligations to clean up the mess you've made.' "
Thanks, Dan; but, really, we can read the opinion for ourselves.
Again, the Judge's opinion and ruling may or may not be justified under the law. However, anyone who works in the environmental area knows that the laws and regulations governing site cleanups are complex, unwieldy and subject to differing interpretation. Yet it never occurs to the self-proclaimed guardians of the environment that there can be a reasonable difference of opinion on legal/regulatory requirements-- it's always a morality play, with good vs. evil.
For certain environmentalists, going green is as much a religion as it is a science, with saints (Al Gore) and sinners (Bush; Cheney; Boeing).
Another interesting point is the way media bias covers the judiciary. The Los Angeles Times' article refers simply to U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti in a tone of reverence and respect-- the Judge has spoken and thus it must be so. However, when the same Judge made a ruling on pornography regulation that the press regarded as anti-First Amendment, coverage made sure to insinuate that the Judge was probably biased or at least suffering from advanced age:
The CPPA [Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996] was originally intended to address child pornography created through the technique of computer "morphing"--using a computer to put a child's face on the body of a nude adult, for example.
But lawyers who have tried to get the law overturned say it is unconstitutionally vague and bans expression protected by the First Amendment. Mr. Sirkin, representing the Los Angeles-based Free Speech Coalition, filed a challenge to the CPPA in San Francisco, in hoping to draw a sympathetic judge, he says. Instead, he got Judge Samuel Conti, a 76-year-old Nixon appointee on senior status. [emphasis added]
"He was the worst draw you could possibly get," says Mr. Sirkin.
***
Companies that distribute films and other images nationwide also have to take into account the possibility that prosecutors in conservative areas of the country may enforce the CPPA more strictly than in liberal areas.
Says [film screenwriter] Mr. Schiff, "You can never anticipate the amount of nuttiness in the legal or the law enforcement community."
Apparently, the Judge has become a saint now that he has found religion.
