Republican Richard Pombo (R-CA11) is seriously proposing to open up oil drilling off the east and west coast and sell 15 national parks "for energy and commercial development" in his budget reconciliation proposal.

From Greenwire.com

"The draft proposes removing the 91-acre Theodore Roosevelt Island from the park system and selling it to commercial or residential developers, as well as requiring land be made available for a vehicle bridge to the George Washington Memorial Parkway. The island is in the Potomac River between Washington, D.C., and Arlington, Va.

[Also included are:]

Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, Texas.
Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve, Alaska.
Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, Alaska.
Cape Krusenstern National Monument, Alaska.
Eugene O'Neill National Historic Site, California.
Fort Bowie National Historic Site, Arizona.
Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site, Massachusetts.
Kobuk Valley National Park, Alaska.
Lake Clark National Park, Alaska.
Mary McLeod Bethune Council House, Washington, D.C.
Minute Man Missile National Historic Site, South Dakota.
Noatak National Preserve, Alaska.
Thaddeus Kosciuszko National Monument, Pennsylvania.
Thomas Stone National Historic Site, Maryland.
Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, Alaska.

Other revenue-raising proposals include mandated sales of advertisements on official Park Service maps and guides and on the inside and outside of all NPS buses, shuttles, vans, trams and passenger ferries. The Interior Department would also be required to solicit and sell commercial sponsorship of park visitors and education centers, museums, trails, auditoriums and theaters. An exception would be made for those already named after individuals."

How can you sell a park named for a conservationist like TR for condo development?  I can see it now, Welcome to the Coca-Cola Grand Canyon or Microsoft's Mount Rushmore.  

O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court

By GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court and a key swing vote on issues such as abortion and the death penalty, said Friday she is retiring.

O'Connor, 75, said she expects to leave before the start of the court's next term in October, or whenever the Senate confirms her successor. There was no immediate word from the White House on who might be nominated to replace O'Connor.

It's been 11 years since the last opening on the court, one of the longest uninterrupted stretches in history. O'Connor's decision gives Bush his first opportunity to appoint a justice.

"This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor. It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms. I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure."

The White House has refused to comment on any possible nominees, or whether Bush would name a woman to succeed O'Connor. Her departure leaves Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the only other woman among the current justices.

Possible replacements include Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and federal courts of appeals judges J. Michael Luttig, John Roberts, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Michael McConnell, Emilio Garza and James Harvie Wilkinson III. Others mentioned are former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, lawyer Miguel Estrada and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson, but Bush's pick could be a surprise choice not well known in legal circles.

Another prospective candidate is Edith Hollan Jones, a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who was also considered for a Supreme Court vacancy by President Bush's father.

 ------------------------

However you feel about the Supreme Court's recent eminent domain decision in Kelo confirming the right of cities to forcibly purchase your property for private economic development, please remember that 1) these purchases are often done via private development entities (this isn't new), but more importantly, 2) Conservatives Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas primarily support the homeowners b/c they believe owning property is a fundamental right and any interference with private property is a government "taking."  

Again (setting aside honest redevelopment vs. gentrification issues), this is the same reasoning behind saying restaurant owners have the right to not serve Blacks or miners/loggers can destroy the habitat of an endangered species (b/c, as the reasoning goes, the gov't should never force private property owners to do anything they don't want [without compensation]).  Currently, several states keep drug prices lower artificially by threatening to "condemn" patented drugs the same way they do with real estate.  If property rights ever became "fundamental" like Scalia and Thomas believe, medicaid would fall apart even faster than it aleady is.  

Feel however you like, but please remember that this case was brought by the conservative/libertarian law firm, Institute for Justice , to achieve a political end.  For them, it's not just about some blue-collar homeowners in New London, it's about re-establishing the same feudal, absolute property rights that caused serfdom and slavery.  

This is the same thing as putting poor Black kids on TV to promote vouchers while the public school system falls apart.  They just want us to identify with a few individuals instead of the common good.