Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Certainly they are, when managed responsibly. But this action of the State of Hawaii is nothing more than an unnecessary slap in the face to free enterprise, and is based on their mistaken belief that the aquarium trade is a threat to those species of fish involved. It is a heinous totalitarian imposition on the people.Governmental environmental regulations are extremely important. Not to mention the other services that government provides (schools, medicare/medicaid, social security, roads, 911, police/fire services, welfare assistance, regulations on business, etc.)
That seems a bit strong. The people don't have the right to do whatever they want to reefs and environmental regulations are vitally important to their long-term health. You can argue whether this specific regulation was misguided, but it's objectively not a totalitarian imposition, especially considering it was enacted by a democratic government (not the party, the system).It is a heinous totalitarian imposition on the people.
This is devastating on all levels. For the hobby. For Hawaii. For marine biology, frankly. My concern for the care of the oceans has only INCREASED as a result of being introduced to reef keeping years ago. I am stunned by the ban and hope that Hawaii gets their act together and reconsiders. Apparently, the economic effect on the state will be minimal (in their opinion) or the illegal harvesting of fish was so high, they were forced to ban all fishing, OR (more likely) the "green" element of the Democratic/Left parties got the upper hand for now.I think it's possible, but probably not in the near future. The environmental review that the courts want done in order to lift the ban apparently would cost $10 million and take 10-15 years.
I'm not sure I agree. It was enacted by a JUDGE, wasn't it. That's not ruling from the legislator, or even democracy. That's ruling from the bench. Maybe I'm mistaken on the "facts" of the ban, but if a judge indeed imposed the ban unilaterally apart from legislative action, then it was an imposition and not a democratic result.That seems a bit strong. The people don't have the right to do whatever they want to reefs and environmental regulations are vitally important to their long-term health. You can argue whether this specific regulation was misguided, but it's objectively not a totalitarian imposition, especially considering it was enacted by a democratic government (not the party, the system).
In the American system of government, judges never have the power to impose completely new policies unilaterally. Their sole power to affect policy lies in how they interpret laws or governing documents that are already in effect. Sometimes this can be used to broad-ranging effect (like in Obergefell v. Hodges or Citizens United v. FEC), but judges never have the power to unilaterally enact policies outside of pre-existing law. In this case, the judge interpreted the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, which had already been passed by the legislature and signed by the governor some years ago, to include this ban.I'm not sure I agree. It was enacted by a JUDGE, wasn't it. That's not ruling from the legislator, or even democracy. That's ruling from the bench. Maybe I'm mistaken on the "facts" of the ban, but if a judge indeed imposed the ban unilaterally apart from legislative action, then it was an imposition and not a democratic result.
Who are you saying is ill-informed?I am a believer in social democracy, and yes since being introduced to this hobby my concern for the ocean and for reefs has only increased. I’m not one of these ill-informed people.
I am a believer in constitutional democracy. Social democracy is a rather new term that has dangerous un-democratic nuances (depending on how it is interpreted!) and is quite subjective if you ask me. I will refrain from any other comments on this matter as I don't want to stir political emotions either way. Just saying that since we are talking about a reef system here, the underlying foundation for any ban or lack of ban should not be public opinion, prevailing social winds or even a judge's individual interpretation, but the clear articulation of the law. If the law is unclear, the judge should push it back to the legislator to make it clear ...that's his job... If the legislator disagrees with the judge, they should refine the law to bring clarity or correction to such a ruling. That's their job.I am a believer in social democracy, and yes since being introduced to this hobby my concern for the ocean and for reefs has only increased. I’m not one of these ill-informed people.
The problem is that there is no such thing as "the clear articulation of the law." It just doesn't exist. Laws are often extremely vague, or written in such a way that it is unclear how a given or novel circumstance falls under them. The process of judicial review is not new, it dates back to 1803 and the SCOTUS case Marbury v. Madison.I am a believer in constitutional democracy. Social democracy is a rather new term that has dangerous un-democratic nuances (depending on how it is interpreted!) and is quite subjective if you ask me. I will refrain from any other comments on this matter as I don't want to stir political emotions either way. Just saying that since we are talking about a reef system here, the underlying foundation for any ban or lack of ban should not be public opinion, prevailing social winds or even a judge's individual interpretation, but the clear articulation of the law. If the law is unclear, the judge should push it back to the legislator to make it clear ...that's his job... If the legislator disagrees with the judge, they should refine the law to bring clarity or correction to such a ruling. That's their job.
I am appalled at how the USA has suddenly drifted into social justice, social democracy, social courtroom rulings as a complete end around the legislative bench. It doesn't matter which side of a particular issue we tend to lean on, if our standard for justice, democracy, or even fishing in Hawaii is no longer tied to concrete law and legislative clarity, then we have no more true democracy and we are edging closer to something America has historically never been.
The blame for all of the above (no matter which side you are on) falls to the state / federal legislators that have increasingly given power to judges, czars, agencies and groups to devise, carry out and enforce unwritten laws written by unelectable individuals.
I get off track a bit and apologise. Please do not seek to read into my opinions as either conservative or liberal on specific issues. That's beside the point. The point is that we are discussing the right of Hawaii to enact a fishing ban. That's their right. We can't complain, even if we disagree or are hurt as hobbyists in the matter. What is not clear is how a judge can suddenly drop the ban based on subjective interpretation. I don't believe the fishing industry (hobbyist industry) has the lobbying power to overcome this one. Is there really that much money in reefkeeping industry to overcome the massive reviews, bureaucratic paperwork and legal fees to convince Hawaii's government and judges to overturn a ban??? I doubt it very highly!
This is not correct. The most recent decision was the result of one judge, but he was just upholding the decision of the Hawaii Environmental Council, which voted 15-0 to uphold the ban in the first place. This judge just closed the unintentional loophole they left.What I really mean by “social democracy” is just better ensuring that the average person and average family is taken care of. Nothing “Communist” or anything like that. Strengthening access to education, health care, welfare, all with existing (if not more) checks and balances with the ability to fight back using force when necessary.
But yes, I am quite disappointed as you said it was the decision of one judge. One judge.
I agree on the electoral concerns. I also agree that judicial review is necessary - legislators cannot foresee every "unintended consequence" or "application" of the law. My only point is that judges should not legislate from the bench. Their job is to put the pressure back on the legislator to clarify. We have a democratic crisis right now - on all levels precisely because we are using the term "democratic" and "democracy" without clearly defining what that means.The problem is that there is no such thing as "the clear articulation of the law." It just doesn't exist. Laws are often extremely vague, or written in such a way that it is unclear how a given or novel circumstance falls under them. The process of judicial review is not new, it dates back to 1803 and the SCOTUS case Marbury v. Madison.
Judicial power is honestly the least of America's concerns regarding the health of its democracy right now. Strengthening and reforming electoral institutions is vastly more important.
If the council is unelected or if its a judge, the principle is the same. It's not democratic if the people have no venue by which to vote in or out or repeal. It's not democratic if unelected officials are making policy and law outside the scope of the legislative branch. Even if we agreed with the policy enacted, it's not democratic.This is not correct. The most recent decision was the result of one judge, but he was just upholding the decision of the Hawaii Environmental Council, which voted 15-0 to uphold the ban in the first place. This judge just closed the unintentional loophole they left.
The 15 Council members are appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The people elect both the governors and the Senators.If the council is unelected or if its a judge, the principle is the same. It's not democratic if the people have no venue by which to vote in or out. It's not democratic if unelected officials are making policy and law outside the scope of the legislative branch. Even if we agree if the policy enacted, it's not democratic.
The 15 Council members are appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The people elect both the governors and the Senators.
Also, the most recent poll showed that 83% of Hawaiians supported the ban.