- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,139
- Reaction score
- 58,870
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
The federal judge who overturned Barack Obama's offshore drilling moratorium reported owning stock in numerous companies involved in the offshore oil industry — including Transocean, which leased the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig to BP prior to its April 20 explosion in the Gulf of Mexico — according to 2008 financial disclosure reports.
U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman issued a preliminary injunction today barring the enforcement of the president's proposed six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling, arguing that the ban is too broad.
According to Feldman's 2008 financial disclosure form, posted online by Judicial Watch [pdf], the judge owned stock in Transocean, as well as five other companies that are either directly or indirectly involved in the offshore drilling business.
It's not surprising that Feldman, who is a judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, has invested in the offshore drilling business — an Associated Press investigation found earlier this month that more than half the federal judges in the districts affected by the BP spill have financial ties to the oil and gas industry.
The report discloses that in 2008, Judge Feldman held less than $15,000 worth of stock in Transocean, as well as similar amounts (federal rules only require that judges report a range of values ) in Hercules Offshore, ATP Oil and Gas, and Parker Drilling. All of those companies offer contract offshore drilling services and operate offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Judge Feldman also owned between $15,000 and $50,000 in notes offered by Ocean Energy, Inc., a company that offers "concept design and manufacturing design of submersible drilling rigs," according to its website. None of the companies were direct parties to the lawsuit seeking to overturn the ban.
Judge Feldman did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
Associated Press investigation found earlier this month that more than half the federal judges in the districts affected by the BP spill have financial ties to the oil and gas industry.
Judge who overturned drilling moratorium reported owning stock in drilling companies - Yahoo! News
I am not a legal expert, but at what point must a judge recuse himself? Ultimately, while I do agree with the judgment made, I am a bit nervous about the objectivity that can be maintained by any judge who has a possible personal reason to make a ruling.
Judge who overturned drilling moratorium reported owning stock in drilling companies - Yahoo! News
I am not a legal expert, but at what point must a judge recuse himself? Ultimately, while I do agree with the judgment made, I am a bit nervous about the objectivity that can be maintained by any judge who has a possible personal reason to make a ruling.
Before jumping to any conclusions, I would have to ask this: does he manage his own financial portfolio or does someone else do that for him? If so, how involved in the picking of his own stocks is he? And finally, what stake in each company does he have? Is it less than a percent? More than 10%? How much of his entire portfolio is invested in those particular stocks?
Just because he has stocks in drilling doesn't mean that those stocks were even in his thoughts when he ruled.
I was about to deliver the bad news to everyone that if you own a retirement portfolio you have some investment in oil.......but you two beat me to it. Even if you manage your own fund.......somewhere down the line it has a tentacle in oil.I mentioned this in another thread. My 401k has money in index funds. I therefore own indirectly some oil stocks. Would I have to recuse myself? Is there any evidcne the judges ruling was not based on sound legal precedent?
I was about to deliver the bad news to everyone that if you own a retirement portfolio you have some investment in oil.......but you two beat me to it. Even if you manage your own fund.......somewhere down the line it has a tentacle in oil.
Before jumping to any conclusions, I would have to ask this: does he manage his own financial portfolio or does someone else do that for him? If so, how involved in the picking of his own stocks is he? And finally, what stake in each company does he have? Is it less than a percent? More than 10%? How much of his entire portfolio is invested in those particular stocks?
Just because he has stocks in drilling doesn't mean that those stocks were even in his thoughts when he ruled.
Then the case couldn't be heard.....because everyone who invests has money in oil in one way or another.It does, however raise the spectre of impropriety, to avoid it, he should recuse himself.
It does, however raise the spectre of impropriety, to avoid it, he should recuse himself.
Well, the whole point is that every company diversifies, so if you are in a stocks portfolio you have money in oil somehow, if you are in mutual funds and not the manager then you have money in oil, if you are the manager the companies you have in the fund have money in oil. You simply have the most direct route.:mrgreen:I inherited some oil investments.
Judge who overturned drilling moratorium reported owning stock in drilling companies - Yahoo! News
I am not a legal expert, but at what point must a judge recuse himself? Ultimately, while I do agree with the judgment made, I am a bit nervous about the objectivity that can be maintained by any judge who has a possible personal reason to make a ruling.
This doesn't really make much sense if you think about it. What do we know? Back in 2008, this guy had a few thousand dollars in a handful of oil company stocks. You're assuming that he still owns those stocks, even though the very next line in your article indicates he may have sold some or all of them. His decision on this issue will have a minuscule effect on the overall value of those stocks. Unless you think he's throwing away his reputation and career for what will amount to (at best) a few hundred dollars, it doesn't make much sense.
From the other thread:
Edit: If you look at the dude's disclosure, he had stated positions in 125 different companies across every industry in the country.
I mentioned this in another thread. My 401k has money in index funds. I therefore own indirectly some oil stocks. Would I have to recuse myself? Is there any evidcne the judges ruling was not based on sound legal precedent?
Your only a moderator.
Your never likely to be a Judge, so in your case it is immaterial.
Look at all of the apologists coming out to defend this judge.
There is a clear conflict of interest. His ruling on the moratorium should be voided and reviewed by a different judge who doesn't have a history with the oil companies.
Look at all of the apologists coming out to defend this judge.
There is a clear conflict of interest. His ruling on the moratorium should be voided and reviewed by a different judge who doesn't have a history with the oil companies.
Look at all of the apologists coming out to defend this judge.
There is a clear conflict of interest. His ruling on the moratorium should be voided and reviewed by a different judge who doesn't have a history with the oil companies.
Does not matter Salazar said he will reinstate it.
Salazar seeks to reimpose drilling moratorium
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says he will issue a new order imposing a moratorium on deepwater drilling after a federal judge struck down the existing one.
Salazar said in a statement Tuesday evening that the new order will contain additional information making clear why the six-month drilling pause was necessary in the wake of the Gulf oil spill. The judge in New Orleans who struck down the moratorium earlier in the day complained there wasn't enough justification for it.
Bogus, he cites safety reasons, but ignores that his own department stated all rigs had no real safety problems after reinspection.
Then, Gibbs says Obama believes that until investigations can determine why the spill happened, continued deepwater drilling exposes workers and the environment to "a danger that the president does not believe we can afford.... ignoring that his own department has issued a report saying they are fine.
Secretary Salazar has undertaken several initiatives in response to BP’s spill, including:
-Ordered immediate inspections of all deepwater operations in the Gulf of Mexico. The inspections of deepwater drilling rigs found Incidents of Non-Compliance (INC) on two rigs. Those violations were corrected and no other violations were found.
Then the case couldn't be heard.....because everyone who invests has money in oil in one way or another.
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?