We believe there has been a great misunderstanding in San Francisco. Maybe it’s the fog rolling in from the sea. Or perhaps the city’s smog caused eye problems for the justices of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

These are the only explanations we can find for the court’s outlandish opinions this year. Surely, the three justices meant to uphold the Pledge of Allegiance and strike down the Clinton administration’s bogus and hastily assembled roadless-area decision. Those poor justices just got confused and signed the wrong documents.

Please, tell us this is what happened. We wouldn’t want to believe that the Ninth Circuit really believed that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional but that a slipshod roadless-area rule is fine and dandy.

The 2-1 ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance was issued by a majority of Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, who was appointed by President Nixon, and Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a Carter appointee. By the way, their mailing address is P.O. Box 193939, San Francisco, CA 94119-3939; their telephone number is (415) 556-9800, for anyone who would like to contact them and share a few words.

Then, there’s the roadless-area ruling of Dec. 12.

The court majority, consisting of justices Warren Ferguson and Ronald M. Gould, lifted an injunction against the Roadless Area Conservation Rule – a rule instituted in the waning hours of the Clinton administration. The plan was devised behind locked doors by the administration and environmentalists. Then, in a marathon session of meetings where the Forest Service had a tough time even providing maps, the plan was rubberstamped and adopted.

On May 10, 2001, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho enjoined the U.S. Department of Agriculture from implementing the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Boise County, American Council of Snowmobile Associations, Little Cattle Company Limited Partnership and a host of other impacted parties brought the case. The Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, Natural Resources Defense Council and more of the usual suspects fought the case as intervenors.

The San Francisco court (get ready to be surprised) ruled for the environmentalists. The case involving the Clinton-era roadless-era protection plan now goes back to U.S. District Court in Idaho.

Justice Andrew Kleinfeld should have written the majority opinion on the roadless-area issue. In his dissent, he states scathingly: “The majority claims, ‘The NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) alternatives requirement must be interpreted less stringently when the proposed agency action has a primary and central purpose to conserve and protect the natural environment, rather than to harm it.’ No citation of authority for this proposition is provided. It makes no sense.”

In other words, the majority made it up.

Kleinfeld continues: “The national forests were established to provide a source of timber and to protect the flow of water (he provides an attached footnote for proof). ‘National forests (at their creation) were not to be reserved for aesthetic, environmental, recreational or wildlife-preservation purposes’ (with another attached footnote). They are not the same as wilderness areas, and the national forests are not ‘natural environments.’ They’ve been a managed rather than a natural environment for a hundred years. For most of that time they were managed to serve as a federal tree farm, supplying timber as a renewable resource. It also makes no sense to assume, as the majority opinion does, that roadlessness will ‘conserve and protect’ the forests. The plaintiffs submitted evidence that roadlessness may promote forest fires, insect infestation and disease.”

Kleinfeld got it right. He called the majority on the carpet for fabricating legal reasoning and ignoring government incompetence and fraud. He blasted the Clinton administration for its transparent and hamhanded attempt to push this rule through in record time.

Unfortunately, Kleinfeld was overruled by the majority. However, this is the same majority that wrote in glowing language how “President William Jefferson Clinton” tried to protect “our treasured national forests.” How’s that for legal impartiality?

We’re glad the justices treasure these forests. They had better take the time to see them now. In a few years, these “protected” forests will burn up due to a gross lack of management. Maybe, then, the justices could follow our advice. They could claim (when their Pledge of Allegiance ruling is overturned, for example) that every bad decision they made was out of their control. They could argue that the smoke from our burning forests had blurred their vision.