Do you own a boat? Too bad.

[lonehalf]

On our phone poll this weekend we asked the question...

"...Do you think judges are getting out of hand with their rulings"?.

A vast majority said "Yes".

One guy told me to do a search on "Judge Robert James".

Here's some of the results I got.

http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsdesk/20060814154923ibinews.html

http://www.morebadcopnews.com/insane-louisiana-federal-judge-robert-g-james-declares-boating-illegal-in-all-us-navigable-waters-makes-boating-illegal-across-most-of-the-united-states-american-citizens-now-subject-to-jail-for-recre.html

So, sell your boats and fishing gear to someone who doesn't know about this yet.

[ixion]

1. that guy is crazy. this ruling is entirely unconstitutional, and will

never stand, IMO.

[Javaman]

7. Yeah, just like morons* signing statements or spying on Americans...

:sarcasm:

[One_Life_To_Give]

2. Consider the source

Curious that this is being shouted from a boating industry newsletter and not much elsewhere.

The ruling appears to be more strict than that source describes. Specifically limiting the case to fishing above the normal high water mark. While some people in the boating industry may feel they have a right to fish in your flooded living room. Most people in this country are not likely to agree that just because there is water present on a given day you have an inalienable right to hunt and fish their.

[displacedtexan]

5. Actually, it's a big story at Free republic & other wingnut sites

But not a word as to the merits of the legal teams arguing the case
before the judge.

Your case is only as good as your legal team, y'all.

Chances are that the judge had to rule this way because of
the evidence presented.

In a PUNNY way, this story is fishy.

[msongs]

3. yeah those judges who vote to support the constitution should be dumped

cauz they are out of hand and a threat and phone polls are the best way to determine which ones we should get rid of.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Recursion]

4. Wow, what an insane overstatement of the ruling

The ruling said the owner of property can require that people not fish on that property when it's covered by water. That is, it's only "criminal tresspass" if you're in somebody's flooded front yard and he calls the sheriff, not that sheriffs have to start locking up anybody fishing on the shore.

As far as I can tell (and IANYAL), Norma Parm v. Shumate only applies when the littoral zone of a waterway is under private ownership -- that's not that common -- and only applies to the littoral zone itself, and only gives the property owner a tool of enforcement.

I mean, I can't just go hunting on a guy's land without permission (unless I feel like getting shot), why should I be able to fish on his land without permission?

[TreasonousBastard]

6. A flooded area isn't a "navigable waterway" and so, yeah...

a lot of people are getting all het up about nothing. I still don't know why this had to go to court, but a lot of silly things go to court.

Precedents for this are beach rights and privately owned lakes, and I betcha a lot of the same people screaming over this are the property rights types who don't realize whose side this is on.

Or people who don't believe in any property rights at all, who are now terrified that their assumed "right of trespass" will be curtailed.

[Lurking Dem]

8. According to this ruling

can I anchor out? You cannot anchor in the main channel because it impedes traffic.

I also find this confusing because I think here in Tennessee the Corps of Engineers actually owns all waterfront.

[Realityhack]

10. Stop confusing people with the facts.

;)

BTW do you have a link to the ruling? I didn't find anything in my rather quick search.

[leftofthedial]

9. this is an ownership society

the rest of us are SOL

wait until the coming RW rulings about the air.