[ OUR OPINION ]
Abercrombie, Case,
Inouye deserve votes
|
Having been in Congress since statehood and in the Senate since 1962, Inouye has gained seniority that has paid dividends to Hawaii in terms of military construction and other federal benefits.
In his eighth term in the Senate, Inouye will remain the top-ranked Democrat on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. He also is expected to become the top Democrat on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee; if the Democrats were to gain control of the Senate, Inouye would assume the committee chairmanship.
Inouye and Abercrombie have joined in television campaign commercials, representing themselves as a team. The seventh-term congressman from urban Honolulu has gained seniority in the House Armed Services Committee, complementing Inouye's work on defense appropriations to Hawaii's benefit.
Abercrombie claims credit for nearly $3 billion in military construction and other projects in Hawaii over his 14 years in the House. His Republican opponent, former television journalist Dalton Tanonaka, maintains that those projects emanated from the Pentagon, but Abercrombie's stewardship cannot be discounted.
Abercrombie's public service has included stints on the City Council and the state House and Senate. Tanonaka has not held public office, having been defeated by Duke Aiona in the last election's primary race for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor.
Case is completing his first full term in the House after serving the final month of the term of the late Rep. Patsy Mink. He has held numerous talk-story meetings with his constituents in outlying parts of Oahu and the neighbor islands to stay abreast of their concerns. His thoughtful and energetic efforts deserve his return for a second full term.
Case is challenged by outgoing City Councilman Mike Gabbard, a conservative Republican who has blanketed the congressional district with signs bearing his name but has refused to be interviewed by reporters, exhibiting a disdain for the media. Such a perspective does not lend itself to public accountability.
World’s critters need
humans to litigate
|
Upholding a decision last year by U.S. District Judge David Ezra, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this week ruled that a plaintiff called the Cetacean Community could not by itself challenge the Navy's use of sonar. The coalition of marine mammals sought to ban long-range sonar until President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld consult with the National Marine Fisheries and prepare an environmental impact statement.
Through their Big Island attorney, Lanny Sinkin, the cetaceans argued that they had standing to sue because the 9th Circuit had given the same right to the endangered Palila bird to be a plaintiff. The court wrote in a 1988 ruling that the Palila "has legal status and wings its way into federal court as a plaintiff in its own right." That court went so far as to say the Palila had "earned the right to be capitalized since it is a party to these proceedings."
The cetaceans, or at least Sinkin, took the court seriously, failing to notice that the Palila was not the sole plaintiff in that case. The lawsuit had been filed in name of the bird by the Sierra Club, the national and Hawaii Audubon societies and by an individual "suing as next friends and on their own behalf, as plaintiffs," the 1988 court noted.
The written statements in the Palila case "were little more than rhetorical flourishes," this week's panel said. "They were certainly not intended to be a statement of law, binding on future panels, that animals have standing to bring suit in their own name" under the Endangered Species Act.
The ruling should not deter environmental groups from going to court to protect the animal kingdom. The late Justice William O. Douglas's pronouncement that even "trees should have standing" in court does not mean they should be able to stand alone.
