Whales Lose Supreme Court Case and the NYT Laments and Gnashes Teeth

Check out the first paragraph of David Stout's opinion piece, I mean, hard-hitting New York Time's reportage:

The Supreme Court sided with the White House on Monday in two cases involving national security and worries about the environment, strengthening the Bush administration’s drive, at least for now, for sweeping executive powers in the post-9/11 world.

"At least for now..". Sounds ominous, David. When Democrats run things and put whale-loving justices on the Supreme Court, all will be good. Hold on, Mr. Stout, with Obama it will all be better soon. And here is what has got Mr. Stout so upset:

In the sonar case, the justices said they would review a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which on Feb. 27 upheld most of a lower court ruling that banned high-powered sonar within 12 miles of the coast. Environmental groups had sued to block the use of the sonar because they feared harm to whales and dolphins.

The Bush administration has argued that the sonar training exercises, used to practice tracking of hostile submarines, are vital to national defense, that the possible harm to marine life was being exaggerated and that, in any event, military need should take precedence over the welfare of water creatures.

“This is an issue that is essential to national security, and we welcome the Supreme Court’s decision to review this case,” Lt. Sean Robertson, a Navy spokesman, told The Associated Press.

Southern California’s coastal waters are home to dozens of species of whales, dolphins, seals and sea lions, including nine species that are federally listed as endangered or threatened. Marine biologists have said the sonar in question generates extreme pressure that can disorient and injure the creatures, disrupting their feeding and mating schedules and causing injuries. The Navy has insisted that it takes adequate protective measures, but the Natural Resources Defense Council disagreed, and sued to stop the tests.

The government and military hates children and animals. And the Supreme Court sided with the haters! It's just all too much. In addition, the Supremes said that the government doesn't have to do environmental studies for every portion of the desolate desert that separates the U.S. and Mexico. The administration has unfettered ability to put up that blankety-blank fence. Horrors!

So many things jump out at me from this stupid article. First, the writer doesn't even attempt neutrality. He makes no pretense whatsoever about his bias and just hangs it out there for all to see. This is the New York Times, people, the paper of record. Second, could the outrage be directed at anything sillier? I mean, come on. The Navy shouldn't be able to do sonar maneuvers that would be vital, I should think, should the West-coasters want a decent defense if they're ever attacked. And who would scream the loudest if a fleet of Chinamen stormed Malibu? Third, about the fence and environmental studies. Anyone who has been along the border of Mexico and the U.S. knows it ain't the loveliest terrain. What the hell is there to protect environmentally? Good grief. I get not wanting to hurt whales and dolphins and I'm guessing the Navy doesn't want to. But what is out there in the vast sandy emptiness that needs to be protected?

Soon, though, David Stout will be psyched. Obama will win, put up justices who love babies and animals and the world will be a less mean place. I get weepy thinking about it, but not for the reason Stout does.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News