This is insane. The California SC has banned the sale of shoes made from Kangaroo leather, citing the kangaroo as an endangered species. There are two issues here, the first being to ask why the SC doesn't therefore ban the sale of all leather products; and the second being the biggest joke that kangaroos are an endangered species. Has anyone from California ever been to Australia? They are a pest here, and we have legal culls in every state of the country to rid thousands of them as they destroy crops, etc. They are most certainly NOT an endangered species. Personally I support the non-cull side, but my argument here is once again the demonstrated hypocrisy we see coming out of some courts and law makers. It's ok to ban kangaroo shoes, but it's perfectly legal to import millions of sweat-shop shoes from China and Taiwan




California blocks sale of kangaroo shoes

I didn't see where in the piece it was stated that the California Supreme Court said the kangaroo was endangered. It does say that state law conflicted with the aims of the US Endangered Species Act, but that's a long way from saying that something's endangered...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

The rationale used to justify the ban was in the citing of the endangered species Act. Why was that Act even mentioned at all? If you were to ask any Australian if the kangaroo was endangered , they'd laugh in your face. It's like saying that cows or goats are endangered.

You specifically stated that the California Supreme Court made the determination that the kangaroo was endangered. Did it?

I would want to read the opinion of the Court...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

You're arguing over semantics now, as the Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff who was arguing that the importation of the skins from these animals constituted violation of the Endangered Species Act. If the Court rules in favour of the plaintiff then they had to agree with him; if they didn't it would have ruled in favour of the defendant. BTW, here is an interesting article on law.com about the issue. Kangaroo Shoes Offer Test of Pre-emption

Gosh, thanks for the link. However, I don't believe any opinion from the Court would start out with "Hopping mad...".

I'm not arguing semantics at all. I said I'd like to read the Court's opinion.

Why would you have a problem with my wanting to do that?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I've been searching through the web but I can't find a copy of the Court's transcripts as yet. Still, what is so difficult in understanding that in order for the plaintiff to win the case, the Court had to side with him. If the Court didn't agree with the plaintiff then they would have found in favour of the defendant. I don't understand what the confusing part is??

Court transcripts are not needed. It is clear in the referenced article that the citing of the endangered species act was to say that the act supported the kangaroo cull as it was NOT endangered. This argument was advanced by Adidas.

Of course the question as to why California has the ban remains open.

An additional note. There are many species of kangaroo and some may well be endangered, perhaps a blanket law is easier to police rather than trying to identify species - just a thought.

Seems odd though - kangaroo products are prolific in Australia - meat and skins.

What?

Of course the Court would have to side with the plaintiff for the plaintiff to win.

There's nothing confusing about that, and I've certainly said nothing to the contrary...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

And that could be determined by reading the opinion of the Court. The transcripts of the proceeding, I agree, probably aren't needed. In order to understand why the Court decided how it did, the Court's opinion most certainly is...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Not really - this IS the California Supreme Court after all....

All sarcasm aside, while the opinion may give us insight into the workings of their disturbed minds, the ultimate outcome is they basically just put the Australian Jumping Rodent on the ESA list.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

OK, so the defendant's lawyers made a hell of a bad job. The Court did not.

The Court has to determine the case based upon the evidence presented in the courtroom, together with its own knowledge of the law and such facts that are "publicly known". It is certainly not the knowledge of every Californian that the kangaroo is not endangered. Thus, the defendant should have presented evidence to the fact that kangaroos are not endangered, and should thus have won the case.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

Kangaroos are sure the hell not endangered by anything on my farm save myself and my DB shotgun. Now, I'm an ok shot whenever I manage to get out there, but I'm not THAT good enough to endanger them.

__________________

THE GOVERNMENT HAS SENT ME

Yes, at first glance this sounds like the court ruling stupidly, but reading the discusion here, it sounds more like a good and proper ruling that unfortunately upholds a stupid law.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

LOL It's strange to think of the kangeroo as a nuisance since we don't have them here. In Louisiana, nuisance animals are gators, nurtia, possums and armadillos, not cute kangeroos!

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"