Now the scientists have won again.It may be beside the point, but all three judges were appointed by Democrats. They are Ronald M. Gould of Seattle; Susan P. Graber of Portland, both appointed by President Clinton; and Ruggero Aldisert, a senior judge from Pittsburgh now in his mid-80s and originally appointed to the Third Court of Appeals by President Clinton.
These three had no trouble coming to a sensible decision in this case. The decision shows they read the statute and applied its plain language to the case at hand.
And a fine sensible decision it was, too. But yes, the riff on the source of the judges' appointments is beyond "beside the point". The writer, Mr. Hasso Hering, is described as having followed the case from the beginning, and does mention the word "Babbitt", so he must be aware that Interior's nose-thumbing at science, law, and common-sense, and the Corps of Engineers over-reach, took place squarely under the auspices of a Democratic administration. Legislation to clarify NAGPRA in the interests of science, and, more specifically, to preserve the Kennewick site from burial by the Corps, was introduced by Republicans and opposed by the Clinton administration. In the case of site-preservation, Congressional intent was ignored and the site buried. The present administration is culpable in that Interior and Justice have carried over the policies of the previous administration. (The poor quality of their efforts in defending Babbitt's decision suggests a certain indifference. Let's see if and how they plan to appeal.) Here are a few pertinent links: 1, 2, 3, 4. (Sorry - free registration required.)
Folks, there's plenty of nonsense on both right and left to poke sticks at, plenty for everybody, so there's no need to pretend that those who take up the case against the scientists, on this and related issues, don't come predominately from the left. They do. (This fact, note, says nothing about the affiliation of the defenders of the scientists.) I'd say the decision could properly be described as a victory for liberalism (not Liberalism USA c. 2003) over obscurantism. To try to spin it, however off-handedly, as a victory for Democratic enlightenment over an implied conservative obstructionism is just preposterous.
Time-lines of events and news items can be found here and here.