- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Accountability is a real bitch. Too bad for Obama that there are actually three branches of government.
When Judge Martin Feldman ordered the federal government to end its moratorium on deep-sea drilling, he actually meant it. In a ruling earlier today, the federal judge in New Orleans has held the Obama administration in contempt for its “defiance” in reimposing the moratorium through other means.
The government has not issued a permit to drill in nine months, evidence that the White House has attempted to evade Feldman’s orders. The lawsuit alleges that thousands of jobs have been lost in the “permitorium,” as some have dubbed the policy, and that the loss of American production has hiked costs and made the US more dependent than ever on imports. It also drove investment in exploration out of the US and into places like Brazil. The economic damage from the permitorium will take years to reverse, as major rigs have already departed the Gulf.
Federal judge holds Obama administration in contempt over drilling “permitorium” « Hot Air
Accountability is a real bitch. Too bad for Obama that there are actually three branches of government.
They're not activist judges if their rulings are grounded in the law rather than in their political views.It's kind of funny how the "activist judge" accusation doesn't come out in situations like these.
They're not activist judges if their rulings are grounded in the law rather than in their political views.
Props to the fed judge, btw. Gutsy move.
They're not activist judges if their rulings are grounded in the law rather than in their political views.
Props to the fed judge, btw. Gutsy move.
Well, I imagine it would be the Fed Ct's ruling several months ago throwing out the moratorium that the Obama admin has now done an end run around.Cite the law then.
Honestly it just seems like that to the judge because no permits have been issued that means that the moratorium is still in affect.
Well, I imagine it would be the Fed Ct's ruling several months ago throwing out the moratorium that the Obama admin has now done an end run around.
I guess that's why it's being referred to as a "permitorium".
Well, I remember the ruling when it came down but no, I don't care to go looking for it now. Now it's obvious to everyone that Obama's admin didn't respect the ruling so, well, here we are.It probably would, but I'm to learn that not only do you not know the law you claim is being enforced here but you also don't even know where to find it, yet you still are convinced his ruling is grounded in law. I'm curious about how you think you have the basis for that opinion, assuming its not grounded in political views which would make you a hypocrite.
They do get that way when you don't honor their rulings.I guess. Unless the judge said the permits had to be back by a certain time, there really isn't anything wrong here. It is just the judge being pissed.
It probably would, but I'm to learn that not only do you not know the law you claim is being enforced here but you also don't even know where to find it, yet you still are convinced his ruling is grounded in law. I'm curious about how you think you have the basis for that opinion, assuming its not grounded in political views which would make you a hypocrite.
if you don't think it's grounded in law, why not prove it?
They do get that way when you don't honor their rulings.
In other words, you got nothing.Sorry its the maker of a statement's responsibility to prove it, not the receiver to prove it false. No one has the right or should have the expectations for their statements to be taken as truth without any sort of backing. If a person wishes to make an argument they are responsible to back it up.
In other words, you got nothing.
The initial ruling was grounded in the law. The contempt is for not honoring the ruling. There's nothing new or nefarious going on here. That's the way the system works.Again though you said it was based in law. What law is the judge using here?
The Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency, but the agency must “cogently explain why it has exercised its discretion in a given manner.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 48. It has not done so.
On the record now before the Court, the defendants have failed to cogently reflect the decision to issue a blanket, generic, indeed punitive, moratorium with the facts developed during the thirty-day review. The plaintiffs have established a likelihood of successfully showing that the Administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the moratorium.
The plaintiffs assert that they have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm as a result of the moratorium. The Court agrees. Some of the plaintiffs’ contracts have been affected; the Court is persuaded that it is only a matter of time before more business and jobs and livelihoods will be lost. The defendants trivialize such losses by characterizing them as merely a small percentage of the drilling rigs affected, but it does not follow that this will somehow reduce the convincing harm suffered. Furthermore, courts have held that in making the determination of irreparable harm, “both harm to the parties and to the public may be considered.” In re Nw. Airlines Corp., 349 B.R. 338, 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (quoting Long Island R.R. v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists, 874 F.3d 901, 910 (2nd Cir. 1989)). The effect on employment, jobs, loss of domestic energy supplies caused by the moratorium as the plaintiffs (and other suppliers, and the rigs themselves) lose business, and the movement of the rigs to other sites around the world will clearly ripple throughout the economy in this region
In other words, you got nothing.
I love jailhouse lawyers who think they are familiar with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Activities in interstate commerce can be regulated. But inactivity cannot be regulated. This decision will be appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. Muy conservamento group of appellate jurists.They are likely to affirm the trial court decision. Then on to the Supreme Court where it will break down 4 to 4 with Justice Anthony Kennedy deciding for the whole country. Obama's riverboat gamble. I love this ****.
I really wish you'd stop calling me that, but fortunately I'm in a pretty good mood, so I won't respond in kind.No I don't, I'm not familar with the judge's reasoning in this case. However I'm not making an opinion on the matter one way or another, and I haven't done so in this topic. Now if you want to play by a set of rules which do not require the maker of a statement to actually back it up with proof or at least evidence, then solely for the sake of arguement I'm just going to state that the Federal government is well within their rights to not issue drilling permits and is in complience with the judge's ruling.
The Federal government is well within their rights to not issue drilling permits and is in complience with the judge's ruling.
Now that I've done that, prove me wrong. Or again are you a hypocrite?
Interior Department regulators acted with “determined disregard” by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling, following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman of New Orleans ruled yesterday.
“Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in the ruling.
“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt,” Feldman said.
I'm just going to state that the Federal government is well within their rights to not issue drilling permits and is in complience with the judge's ruling.
The Federal government is well within their rights to not issue drilling permits and is in complience with the judge's ruling.
Here's a link to the ruling where the judge prohibited the government from enforcing the ban...
Text of ruling blocking Obama's 6 month deepwater drilling moratorium in the Gulf
Just sifting through it, I see this...
and this...
and this...
seems fairly well grounded in law to me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?