Owners of an oyster company that can't get their lease at Point Reyes National Seashore renewed are pledging to take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Drakes Bay Oyster Co. owner Kevin Lunny, who was sure the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would hear his case against the Interior Department, made that announcement late Tuesday after the 9th Circuit refused to take up the case.
“We believe the Court’s decision not to rehear our case is incorrect, and that the dissenting opinion from Judge (Paul) Watford will prevail,” said Mr. Lunny in a prepared statement. “Because of that, we are requesting our case be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. We are grateful for our thousands of supporters, partners, customers and patrons that have supported our small, family-owned farm for four generations. We remain committed to succeeding in our fight to remain open and serve our community.”
The matter revolves around then-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's decision in November 2012 not to extend the company's lease to farm oysters in the national seashore's Drakes Estero. In 1976, when Congress passed the Point Reyes National Seashore Wilderness Act, it directed that the estero fall within officially designated wilderness once all non-conforming uses were removed from its waters. The oyster company, whose lease ran out in November 2012, was the last non-conforming use.
Drakes Bay sued over Mr. Salazar's decision, arguing that it was arbitrary and capricious and violated both the federal government's Administrative Procedures Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
Courts have refused to agree with the company, however.
Last February, a U.S. District Court judge refused to issue an injunction that would have allowed the company to continue farming oysters while pursuing its lawsuit against the federal government. Mr. Lunny's attorneys then asked the 9th Circuit to enjoin the Park Service. But last September, in a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit also refused to grant the request.
That prompted Drakes Bay to request an "en blanc," or full court, hearing of its request. On Tuesday that request was denied.
Comments
You are making 'assumptions' but are asking us for hard facts.
Go away.
Rick, you said you had proof. Where is it?
I am not going anywhere. Kurt may save you by ending this thread, but the reality will remain that you make wild accusations and claims but seldom back them up and as long as you do that, I am going to call you out.
I say the Roberts court is partisan. Most of the nation agrees with me - the progressives because they hate it and the conservatives because they love it.
YOU asked for proof. That was the funniest thing I've ever heard, and if you can't step back from your partisan point of view to acknowledge it then no amount of discussion or anything could make a difference in your partisan mind.
I'm walking away, to avoid this piddling match so that others, who care more about this topic than I, can discuss it without Kurt having to close it for you and me.
Sorry Kurt.
Yes he believes that the Constitution should rule. The progressives don't. Which is why I phrased my question (on the other thread) as I did, ie when did his partisanship have him make a ruling contrary to the Constitution?
Another baseless accusation.
Statistics (what you originally presented and based your argument on) show that the 9th circuit is not overturned/reversed more than any other circuit. So, you make up statistics to prove something I have already proven untrue and the statistics you made up are completely unrelated to the point. And yet, you demand others provide you with 'facts.' The problem, ec, is that providing you with facts dooes not change your mind about your beliefs.
BTW - both "progressives" and (I guess) non-progressives base their opinions on their interpretations of the Constitution. For you to argue that one interpretation is more correct than another because you agree with it is hilarious.
Back to the the article, having read the 9th's opinion and the dissent, I don't believe Scotus will take up this case. There is no consitutional question involved.
I did not make up a thing and you have not proven a thing untrue. Quite the contrary. Perhaps you have better numbers than the American Bar Association.
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelprop/magazine/L...
For the record, it should be "en banc" (the bench in French), not "en blanc" (in white in French) unless of course the lawyers think they have better chances if the judges change their wardrobe color. :)
EC, that article is from 2010. As I stated, during the most recent term, 9th circuit was 5th highest overturned. Look it up.
Here are the statistics you made up, that have no relation to the topic at hand:
You even admit that you are assuming within the 'statistic' itself. (BTW - only 1.1% are audited. Those chosen for audit have problems; they are not chosen randomly, much like the court cases. Look it up.)