I was reading up on the new Supreme Court nominee to try and determine when (not if) Roe v. Wade will be overturned, and came across the following:
One Roberts case receiving particularly close attention involves a 2003 challenge to the federal Endangered Species Act. At issue was whether the act could be invoked to protect a certain species of toad that exists entirely in California and was being threatened by a development project. The appeals court ruled that under Congress’s commerce-clause powers, the Endangered Species Act extends protection to the toad.
Parties in the case asked the full appeals court to reconsider. All but two judges declined to take up the case.
Roberts was one of the two.
In his dissent, he said the full court should agree to hear the case to more faithfully apply two Supreme Court precedents establishing limits on Congress’s commerce-clause powers. He noted that the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals had recently adopted a similar, more restrictive, reading of commerce-clause authority and the Endangered Species Act.
That Roberts, who routinely appears to side with big business (and also appears to reject any restriction on presidential power–gee, hard to see what makes him attractive to Bush) wanted to take on the case isn’t the issue for me.
What bugs me is that if someone wants to build a development on MY home, and I protest that, then it’s tough beans. I lose my home. I’m screwed. But if someone wants to disenfranchise a freakin’ toad, THAT’S where the line is drawn? What the hëll–?!?
That’s it. I’m building a small enclosure in my back yard and getting me some of those toads. Either that or I’m going to lobby for Jews and/or liberals to be considered an endangered species.
PAD
• 
Recent Comments