Forest Service, Bowing To Court, Embraces Scrooge

By Audrey Hudson - October 11, 2005 - The Washington Times

A Forest Service regulation that allowed projects determined as having minimal environmental impact to be exempt from environmental studies and reviews was challenged by the Earth Island Institute.

Judge James K. Singleton of the Eastern District Court of California ruled in July against a project to remove charred and damaged trees, which could kindle a future fire, in the Sequoia National Forest.

The court said last month in a follow-up ruling that its decision in Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck applies nationwide, rather than just to the local dispute.

Do the environmentalists really care about anything but their own desires? Do our courts not care that granting them their power to dictate to society what our rules are supposed to be will ultimately destroy representative democracy? The environmental movement has long been disposed to extreme measures to get what it wants. Judges who agree with the goals have long allowed the movement to subvert the desires of the democratically elected officials and dictate rulings that support their environmentalist agenda. Each is pushing down this path because of the passion for issues to which they are dedicated.

However each is ignoring the implications for their actions. Representative democracy, the form of government we have lived under for over two centuries, has a proven track record of arranging pretty good compromises that serve the people and the concept of freedom. Neither the environmentalists nor the court campaingers for a "living Constitution" seem to concern themselves with the fact that our legislatures must adopt compromises to be effective. The extremists in the environmental movement and the extremists among the court activists don't like compromise.

As a result we get the kind of stupid ruling we see here. For at best trivial issues, this judge has made rulings that damage society.