The ruling leaves boating open in all navigable channels, therefore
certainly doesn't "outlaw boating in all navigable waters" in the US.

All the ruling does is clarify that the riparian land owners also own
and control the shallow waters outside the main navigable channels.
While this affects rivers, creeks, etc to some extent it will effect
lakes almost not at all and coastal areas won't even notice any
difference.

But you couldn't pass up an opportunity to take a shot at Clinton. Too
bad.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...

The ruling leaves boating open in all navigable channels, therefore
certainly doesn't "outlaw boating in all navigable waters" in the US.

All the ruling does is clarify that the riparian land owners also own
and control the shallow waters outside the main navigable channels.
While this affects rivers, creeks, etc to some extent it will effect
lakes almost not at all and coastal areas won't even notice any
difference.


Interesting how your interpretation differs so much from the opinions of the
author of the article and the MRAA president.

So why should we believe your assessment?

But you couldn't pass up an opportunity to take a shot at Clinton. Too bad.


Too bad your head is in your ass and you can't see the cause-and-effect of
poor judicial appointments and how they shape the country we live in. It
was the liberals on the SCOTUS that gave us that absurd eminent domain
ruling, and now it's a liberal judge telling us we can't operate on what has
always been considered public waterways. There's a trend. Open your eyes,
quit playing netcop, and you just might see it.

NOYB wrote:

Too bad your head is in your ass and you can't see the cause-and-effect of
poor judicial appointments and how they shape the country we live in. It
was the liberals on the SCOTUS that gave us that absurd eminent domain
ruling, and now it's a liberal judge telling us we can't operate on what has
always been considered public waterways. There's a trend. Open your eyes,
quit playing netcop, and you just might see it.

My head was not in my ass when I clearly read your false fricking
headline declaring that a Clinton apppointed judge had just outlawed
all recreational boating in the United States. The political comment I
could make as a result of your action is so glaringly obvious it
doesn't need to be made. And besides, there is no room for politics in
a boating NG.

But do stop playing fast and loose with the truth just to try and make
your sick and twisted political hate points. Thanks.

Do I see a trend? You betcha. Brightly and clearly. Only it's not the
trend you have in mind and it's not a proper subject for discussion on
rec.boats. Send me your email address and we can discuss politics
without disrupting the group. :-)

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 01:46:55 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Too bad your head is in your ass and you can't see the cause-and-effect of
poor judicial appointments and how they shape the country we live in. It
was the liberals on the SCOTUS that gave us that absurd eminent domain
ruling, and now it's a liberal judge telling us we can't operate on what has
always been considered public waterways. There's a trend. Open your eyes,
quit playing netcop, and you just might see it.

Thank your side for those poor judicial appointments to the SCOTUS. Seven
of the nine are *Republican* appointments. The situation is much the same
with the Circuit Courts. Since 1969, Republican Presidents have appointed
211 Judges, Democrats 122. Oh, and the District Courts? Republicans have
appointed 813, Democrats 508.

If you don't like the current crop of Judges, I suggest you vote Democrat. ;-)

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 01:46:55 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Too bad your head is in your ass and you can't see the cause-and-effect
of
poor judicial appointments and how they shape the country we live in. It
was the liberals on the SCOTUS that gave us that absurd eminent domain
ruling, and now it's a liberal judge telling us we can't operate on what
has
always been considered public waterways. There's a trend. Open your
eyes,
quit playing netcop, and you just might see it.

Thank your side for those poor judicial appointments to the SCOTUS. Seven
of the nine are *Republican* appointments.

Roberts had to recuse himself from the case involving eminent domain,
because he was the judge who originally ruled for the guy trying to keep his
home. Had he heard the case, the outcome would have been different.

BTW--47% of active Federal judges were appointed by Clinton.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 01:46:55 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Too bad your head is in your ass and you can't see the cause-and-effect
of
poor judicial appointments and how they shape the country we live in.
It
was the liberals on the SCOTUS that gave us that absurd eminent domain
ruling, and now it's a liberal judge telling us we can't operate on what
has
always been considered public waterways. There's a trend. Open your
eyes,
quit playing netcop, and you just might see it.

Thank your side for those poor judicial appointments to the SCOTUS.
Seven
of the nine are *Republican* appointments.

Roberts had to recuse himself from the case involving eminent domain,
because he was the judge who originally ruled for the guy trying to keep
his home. Had he heard the case, the outcome would have been different.

BTW--47% of active Federal judges were appointed by Clinton.

Clinton appointed 341 federal judges.

http://tinyurl.com/382dq

Following data as of October, 2004:

Of the 849 total active federal judges, 201 have been appointed by the
current president, and 262 were appointed by former Republican presidents
going back to Nixon. In total, 55 percent are Republican appointees. The
remaining 45 percent were appointed by Democratic presidents stretching back
to Lyndon Johnson.

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/...little-judges/

NOYB wrote:

BTW--47% of active Federal judges were appointed by Clinton.

Wrong.

If a guy is going to barge in and stink up the NG with politics, it
might be a good idea to actually check facts rather than just blindly
regurgitate Rush Limbaugh's daily distortion.

It would be interesting to know how many of the judges are boaters.
That would be more important than whether they were appointed by a
democrat or a republican president. A judge that is a boater is more
likely to actually understand and appreciate some of the issues that
may come before his/her court relating to boating, the marine
environment, etc.

More boaters on the bench! :-)