judge overturns obama's oil drilling ban

#26
#26
when the basis for the moratorium was a lie, the judge has every right to overturn it.

Experts seek to clarify their views on drilling moratorium | NOLA.com


Then why are people paying attention to it including the white house with their impending appeal?:eek:lol:




When a judge overturns an executive decision from a Republican POTUS, he's a commie activist. When he overturns the decsion of a Democrat, he's a righteous dude.

Got it! :good!:
 
#27
#27
I haven't read the opinion, but what I see quoted in the press from it is disturbing. The judge does not have the autority to simply overrule an executive decision like this based on disagreeing with the need for the policy. There has to be a justiciable controversy, such as a vioilation of a federal statute or a constitutional issue for him to rule this way. He is simply not permitted to substitute his own judgment, no matter how right he (or others) think it is.

but obama is allowed to do the exact same thing?
 
#28
#28
I haven't read the opinion, but what I see quoted in the press from it is disturbing. The judge does not have the autority to simply overrule an executive decision like this based on disagreeing with the need for the policy. There has to be a justiciable controversy, such as a vioilation of a federal statute or a constitutional issue for him to rule this way. He is simply not permitted to substitute his own judgment, no matter how right he (or others) think it is.

A judge cannot rule that there is no defendable basis for such an executive order? Eg. insufficient justification in the moratorium to merit its enforcement?
 
#29
#29
When a judge overturns an executive decision from a Republican POTUS, he's a commie activist. When he overturns the decsion of a Democrat, he's a righteous dude.

Got it! :good!:

Let's see, when a judge overturns an exec decision of the guy you voted for you bring the "no legal grounds for doing so argument"

Got it!

A quick Google scan finds no news source that supports your legal view. Here's a rather comprehensive story about the ruling and nothing in there suggests the ruling was out of line with judicial authority. It does raise a potential conflict of interest with the judge but that is an entirely different matter.

The fact that DoI Sec. is rewriting the moratorium to better link facts to the action suggests the judge was well within his bounds to make such a ruling.

washingtonpost.com

David F. Engstrom, a law professor at Stanford University, said there are several justifications for such challenges under the Administrative Procedures Act. In this case, Feldman granted the preliminary injunction after deciding that the oil companies would probably prevail in their arguments that Interior's actions were "arbitrary and capricious" and that they were being harmed irreparably by the moratorium. Under that standard, Feldman -- and the appeals court that will review his order -- must decide whether there is "a rational connection between the facts that the agency found and the action that it took," Engstrom said.

In his order Tuesday, Feldman emphatically said there was not. "The Court is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the [Interior Department's] findings and the immense scope of the moratorium," he said.

He added that the administration's drilling suspension "does not seem to be fact-specific and refuses to take into measure the safety records of those others in the Gulf." He said that "the blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger."
 
#33
#33
When a judge overturns an executive decision from a Republican POTUS, he's a commie activist. When he overturns the decsion of a Democrat, he's a righteous dude.

Got it! :good!:

I provided backup for my point, counselor. All you've brought is a level of snark usually reserved for the evening roundup at MSNBC.
 
#34
#34
I provided backup for my point, counselor. All you've brought is a level of snark usually reserved for the evening roundup at MSNBC.


Hey thanks! I embrace the thoughful political analysis one gets on MSNBC. Beats the snot out of the Chicken McNugget Meal-sized thinking of Fox.
 
#36
#36
Hey thanks! I embrace the thoughful political analysis one gets on MSNBC. Beats the snot out of the Chicken McNugget Meal-sized thinking of Fox.

Do you have anything to back up your assertion that the judge overstepped his bounds on this ruling?
 
#38
#38
Do you have anything to back up your assertion that the judge overstepped his bounds on this ruling?

Haven't read it, yet (as noted earlier). My concern was that the comments I was reading from the order and repeated in the media were all about how the judge personally disagreed with the rationale for the executive order. All I was saying was that, if that's the foundation for his overturning of the order, that's a problem.

For all I know there is a federal statute at issue that is what his order is actually pinned to. If that is so, the press reports (none of them I've seen) aren't talking about it.

Anyone got a link to the actual order?
 
#39
#39
Haven't read it, yet (as noted earlier). My concern was that the comments I was reading from the order and repeated in the media were all about how the judge personally disagreed with the rationale for the executive order. All I was saying was that, if that's the foundation for his overturning of the order, that's a problem.

For all I know there is a federal statute at issue that is what his order is actually pinned to. If that is so, the press reports (none of them I've seen) aren't talking about it.

Anyone got a link to the actual order?

YouTube - Rick James - Super Freak
 

VN Store



Back
Top