US Producers Concerned Over Canadian Beef

[Sandhusker]

So you're telling me that, even after reading the complete decision, you can't explain how the final rule was not arbitrary nor capricious. You're agreeing with the Ninth, but you don't know why other than they gave the ruling you wanted.

OK, let's start back even a little further. The USDA said the chances of importing BSE was "low". What scale were they using?

 

[Tam]

So you're telling me that, even after reading the complete decision, you can't explain how the final rule was not arbitrary nor capricious. You're agreeing with the Ninth, but you don't know why other than they gave the ruling you wanted.

OK, let's start back even a little further. The USDA said the chances of importing BSE was "low". What scale were they using?

I read it I understand it and even if I did explain it to you, you would tell me I took it out of context like you think everyone does when the evidence doesn't follow your R-CALF Brain Washed reality. So in the interest of truth read it yourself. Or Are you telling all of us that you are not willing to read 41 pages of a ruling that went against R'CALF to find out for YOURSELF why the Ninth found it not to be Arbitrary and Capricious on ALL SIX COUNTS? So I guess there is not much hope of you reading the AHPA or the OIE or the NAFTA reports either is there. As they also go against the Brain Washed reality you thrive on . Stop with your stupid question unless you are willing to help yourself understand what the Appeal court and most others believe to be true. :roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

So you're telling me that, even after reading the complete decision, you can't explain how the final rule was not arbitrary nor capricious. You're agreeing with the Ninth, but you don't know why other than they gave the ruling you wanted.

OK, let's start back even a little further. The USDA said the chances of importing BSE was "low". What scale were they using?

I read it I understand it and even if I did explain it to you, you would tell me I took it out of context like you think everyone does when the evidence doesn't follow your R-CALF Brain Washed reality. So in the interest of truth read it yourself. Or Are you telling all of us that you are not willing to read 41 pages of a ruling that went against R'CALF to find out for YOURSELF why the Ninth found it not to be Arbitrary and Capricious on ALL SIX COUNTS? So I guess there is not much hope of you reading the AHPA or the OIE or the NAFTA reports either is there. As they also go against the Brain Washed reality you thrive on . Stop with your stupid question unless you are willing to help yourself understand what the Appeal court and most others believe to be true. :roll:

The Ninth court is the same outfit who ruled "Under God" had to be removed from the Pledge of Allegance. They also ruled that parents had no right to question what school boards decided to teach their own children. Here they are backing the efforts of the same bunch who said your feed ban became effective in March, 1999. You'll have to excuse me for not swallowing all they say hook, line, and sinker.

So far, all you've exhibited is the universal ability to repeat what you've heard. A bird can do that. An inanimate object such as a tape recorder can do that. I'm asking you to step out of your comfort zone and think, reason, maybe even ask a question like "Does that make sense"?

The whole jist of the USDA's arguement boiled down to a low risk. What the hell is low? Low to who? Low compared to what? The California citrus growers are scrambling right now because "low" temperatures are threatening their crop. "Low" in this case is slightly below freezing. Would you consider 30F to be low for you tonight? Unless you have a scale such as average temperatures in California's case, "low" is totally arbitrary - it really means nothing.

Now, if you can find the scale the USDA used in those 40 pages you think you understand that shows us what "low" means in this case, bring it forward. If you can't, "low" is arbitrary.

Do you want to give up and go on to "capricious" now?

 

[Tam]

So you're telling me that, even after reading the complete decision, you can't explain how the final rule was not arbitrary nor capricious. You're agreeing with the Ninth, but you don't know why other than they gave the ruling you wanted.

OK, let's start back even a little further. The USDA said the chances of importing BSE was "low". What scale were they using?

I read it I understand it and even if I did explain it to you, you would tell me I took it out of context like you think everyone does when the evidence doesn't follow your R-CALF Brain Washed reality. So in the interest of truth read it yourself. Or Are you telling all of us that you are not willing to read 41 pages of a ruling that went against R'CALF to find out for YOURSELF why the Ninth found it not to be Arbitrary and Capricious on ALL SIX COUNTS? So I guess there is not much hope of you reading the AHPA or the OIE or the NAFTA reports either is there. As they also go against the Brain Washed reality you thrive on . Stop with your stupid question unless you are willing to help yourself understand what the Appeal court and most others believe to be true. :roll:

The Ninth court is the same outfit who ruled "Under God" had to be removed from the Pledge of Allegance. They also ruled that parents had no right to question what school boards decided to teach their own children. Here they are backing the efforts of the same bunch who said your feed ban became effective in March, 1999. You'll have to excuse me for not swallowing all they say hook, line, and sinker.

So far, all you've exhibited is the universal ability to repeat what you've heard. A bird can do that. An inanimate object such as a tape recorder can do that. I'm asking you to step out of your comfort zone and think, reason, maybe even ask a question like "Does that make sense"?

The whole jist of the USDA's arguement boiled down to a low risk. What the hell is low? Low to who? Low compared to what? The California citrus growers are scrambling right now because "low" temperatures are threatening their crop. "Low" in this case is slightly below freezing. Would you consider 30F to be low for you tonight? Unless you have a scale such as average temperatures in California's case, "low" is totally arbitrary - it really means nothing.

Now, if you can find the scale the USDA used in those 40 pages you think you understand that shows us what "low" means in this case, bring it forward. If you can't, "low" is arbitrary.

Do you want to give up and go on to "capricious" now?

Funny how you are willing to take the opinion of one judge that supported your organizations stand and was found to have been using incorrect legal standards to apply law to do so. BUT you aren't willing to take the word of 3 US judges backed by 40 other judges that the ruling that backed your organizations stand should be reversed. What is the chance that the other 40 are wrong and the one that happens to live in the same city as R-CALF 's home office, is right. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Sandhusker]

And the tape recorder plays on.....

You just can't think for yourself, can you, Tam? Why isn't the USDA's use of "low" arbitrary in this case? YOUR WORDS - YOUR REASONING.

 

[mwj]

Well Sandhusker I guess you are saying that you do not like the outcome so you are not going to read it :roll: Why don't you just say that and go to another discusion.

 

[Anonymous]

Tam

Funny how you are willing to take the opinion of one judge that supported your organizations stand and was found to have been using incorrect legal standards to apply law to do so. BUT you aren't willing to take the word of 3 US judges backed by 40 other judges that the ruling that backed your organizations stand should be reversed.

Kind of like your undying blind support of the competency of USDA's BSE rule changes---BUT---you attack USDA's testing program and report that the US has virtually no BSE... EH....... :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Sandhusker]

Well Sandhusker I guess you are saying that you do not like the outcome so you are not going to read it :roll: Why don't you just say that and go to another discusion.

If you can explain why "low" isn't arbitrary, feel free. Otherwise, you're not impressing me much, either.

 

[Tam]

And the tape recorder plays on.....

You just can't think for yourself, can you, Tam? Why isn't the USDA's use of "low" arbitrary in this case? YOUR WORDS - YOUR REASONING.

Where does it say that the USDA has to guarantee there is no risk?

 

[Tam]

Tam

Funny how you are willing to take the opinion of one judge that supported your organizations stand and was found to have been using incorrect legal standards to apply law to do so. BUT you aren't willing to take the word of 3 US judges backed by 40 other judges that the ruling that backed your organizations stand should be reversed.

Kind of like your undying blind support of the competency of USDA's BSE rule changes---BUT---you attack USDA's testing program and report that the US has virtually no BSE... EH....... :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oldtimer You said the US judicial system should have the right to look at the evidence. They did, one/ Cebull decided in R-CALF's favor because he chose to use incorrect legal standards which was proven by the US Court of Appeals or they would not have had grounds to reverse his ruling. Three others judges decided to follow the correct legal standards and those standards proved the injunction was unwarrented which was backed up by 40 other Court of Appeal judges. Now who are we to believe the one that used incorrect legal Standards who lives in the same city as R-CALF's leaders or the other 40 ? :?

I seem to remember you being asked about Cebulls head and you saying it wasn't handed to him. So would you like to answer the question now after I posted the fact that the Ninth found your fact finding judge to have repeatedly uses incorrect legal standards in granting a unwarrented injunction?

 

[Anonymous]

Tam

Funny how you are willing to take the opinion of one judge that supported your organizations stand and was found to have been using incorrect legal standards to apply law to do so. BUT you aren't willing to take the word of 3 US judges backed by 40 other judges that the ruling that backed your organizations stand should be reversed.

Kind of like your undying blind support of the competency of USDA's BSE rule changes---BUT---you attack USDA's testing program and report that the US has virtually no BSE... EH....... :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oldtimer You said the US judicial system should have the right to look at the evidence. They did, one/ Cebull decided in R-CALF's favor because he chose to use incorrect legal standards which was proven by the US Court of Appeals or they would not have had grounds to reverse his ruling. Three others judges decided to follow the correct legal standards and those standards proved the injunction was unwarrented which was backed up by 40 other Court of Appeal judges. Now who are we to believe the one that used incorrect legal Standards who lives in the same city as R-CALF's leaders or the other 40 ? :?

I seem to remember you being asked about Cebulls head and you saying it wasn't handed to him. So would you like to answer the question now after I posted the fact that the Ninth found your fact finding judge to have repeatedly uses incorrect legal standards in granting a unwarrented injunction?

Getting criticized or chastised by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is like getting the Medal of Honor to a Judge... They have the worst record in the history of Apellate Courts.....They are the only court I know of that often rule opposite to their own precedent setting rulings... :roll:

I doubt if Judge Cebull lost any sleep over their actions...

 

[Sandhusker]

And the tape recorder plays on.....

You just can't think for yourself, can you, Tam? Why isn't the USDA's use of "low" arbitrary in this case? YOUR WORDS - YOUR REASONING.

Where does it say that the USDA has to guarantee there is no risk?

You can't do it, can you?

 

[Tam]

And the tape recorder plays on.....

You just can't think for yourself, can you, Tam? Why isn't the USDA's use of "low" arbitrary in this case? YOUR WORDS - YOUR REASONING.

Where does it say that the USDA has to guarantee there is no risk?

You can't do it, can you?

Face it Sandhusker you, Oldtimer and R-CALF wanted to have the US courts look at the evidence. One Judge looked and sided with R-CALF. But when 3 more US judges looked at the same evidence they found the first one used "incorrect legal standards" to come to his conclusions and overturned his ruling. When 40 more looked they agreed with the three judges and up held their ruling. It really doesn't matter what I say to you as you aren't going to believe me if you are not willing to read and believe what 3 US Federal Court of Appeal Judges which was backed up by 40 more have to say. It is a waste of time for anyone to explain anything to you as you are so brain washed you will defend R-CALF's crap to your death.

 

[Sandhusker]

Face it, Tam, when asked to actually think for yourself, you can't do it. Again, you transform into the tape recorder and simply repeat what you've been told.

I've picked out one little part of the 9th's ruling for you to rationalize, and you can't do it. Oh, yeah, you support the ruling - you support it because it says what you want it to say, but you can't IN YOUR WORDS WITH YOUR OWN THOUGHTS explain why they are correct. You're a sheep, Tam.

 

[Tam]

Tam

Kind of like your undying blind support of the competency of USDA's BSE rule changes---BUT---you attack USDA's testing program and report that the US has virtually no BSE... EH....... :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oldtimer You said the US judicial system should have the right to look at the evidence. They did, one/ Cebull decided in R-CALF's favor because he chose to use incorrect legal standards which was proven by the US Court of Appeals or they would not have had grounds to reverse his ruling. Three others judges decided to follow the correct legal standards and those standards proved the injunction was unwarrented which was backed up by 40 other Court of Appeal judges. Now who are we to believe the one that used incorrect legal Standards who lives in the same city as R-CALF's leaders or the other 40 ? :?

I seem to remember you being asked about Cebulls head and you saying it wasn't handed to him. So would you like to answer the question now after I posted the fact that the Ninth found your fact finding judge to have repeatedly uses incorrect legal standards in granting a unwarrented injunction?

Getting criticized or chastised by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is like getting the Medal of Honor to a Judge... They have the worst record in the history of Apellate Courts.....They are the only court I know of that often rule opposite to their own precedent setting rulings... :roll:

I doubt if Judge Cebull lost any sleep over their actions...

Another R-CALFer flip flop when the facts are pointed out. :roll: I said he was hand he head by the Ninth and your denied that by saying "Not really-", Now you say getting criticized by them is a badge of honor. So which is it, was he criticized or in my word handed his head or wasn't he or in your words "Not really" ? A simple Yes or No will do. :wink: And why are we to believe Cebull when not one of 40 other judges did?

 

[Sandhusker]

Judge Cebull said the USDA's use of the word "low" was arbitrary. The Ninth said it wasn't. Why was the Ninth correct and Cebull wrong - YOUR OWN THOUGHTS.

 

[Tam]

Face it, Tam, when asked to actually think for yourself, you can't do it. Again, you transform into the tape recorder and simply repeat what you've been told.

I've picked out one little part of the 9th's ruling for you to rationalize, and you can't do it. Oh, yeah, you support the ruling - you support it because it says what you want it to say, but you can't IN YOUR WORDS WITH YOUR OWN THOUGHTS explain why they are correct. You're a sheep, Tam.

Sandhusker when have you ever believed anything that wasn't support the brain washing that R-CALF has done on you? If the words of three US judges, backed but 40 others, can't get through your thick head, I doubt my rationalization of those same words will. God knows there have been more than a few on here that have tried to explain things to you but as long as it goes against R-CALF's colored view on things you have never agreed with anyones attempts to explain anything to you. All you want to do is discredit those that try by using your little games. If you want to know the reasons the Courts didn't agree with Cebull READ THE RULING YOURSELF. If you can't understand the words ask someone else to explain them to you. :wink:

 

[Sandhusker]

Try me, let me hear your rationalizations. The sad thing is you can't do it or you would of done it by now. You can't think for yourself - all you have is "these other guys said so". That's very sad.

 

[Tam]

Judge Cebull said the USDA's use of the word "low" was arbitrary. The Ninth said it wasn't. Why was the Ninth correct and Cebull wrong - YOUR OWN THOUGHTS.

Three judges backed by 40 more to one lone judge, majority wins Sandhusher :wink:

Why Does it matter to you what I or anyone else personally thinks about anything Sandhusker. Nothing we can say to you will ever reverse the brain washing R-CALF has done on you so why keep playing these little games of yours.

R-CALF got their way, a US Federal Judge/ Cebull looked at the evidence and ruled.

The USDA along with plenty of others didn't agree with that ruling so three more US Court of Appeal judges took a look and found the first judge didn't follow the legal rules so they reversed the first judge's ruling.

R-CALF didn't agree so they asked 40 more US judges to take a look and low and behold the third bunch of judges all agreed with the second group of judges.

Now are we to take the word of the first judge when 40 other judges didn't? Sorry Sandhusker I had my doubts about Cebull and 40 other US judges confirmed those doubts. He was using incorrect legal standards so he could rule the way he did which was in R-CALF's favor.

Now if he had used the correct legal standard and still found in R-CALF's favor the border would still be closed and he would still have his creditility among those of the industry that were affected by his ruling. But that is not the way it went down was it? His use of incorrect legal standards damaged his credibility to fairly rule on this or any other case that comes before his court and a review of his cases should be carried out to see how many other cases he used incorrect legal standards on to come to his conclusions. At the very least with his record he shoulds not be the judge that oversees the next round of R-CALF actions!!!!!!!

 

[Tam]

Try me, let me hear your rationalizations. The sad thing is you can't do it or you would of done it by now. You can't think for yourself - all you have is "these other guys said so". That's very sad.

Trust me you are not going to believe me even if I do waste my time trying to explain it to you as you have never believe anything that doesn't follow R-CALF's lines. And if you mean "these other guys" to mean the 40 some federal court judges I guess I'll take their word over yours and R-CALF's anyday. :wink: