It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge who nixed drilling ban has oil investments

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Federal Gov't Halts Sand Berm Dredging


NEW ORLEANS -- The federal government is shutting down the dredging that was being done to create protective sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico.

The berms are meant to protect the Louisiana coastline from oil. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department has concerns about where the dredging is being done.

Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser, who was one of the most vocal advocates of the dredging plan, has sent a letter to President Barack Obama, pleading for the work to continue.
www.wdsu.com...
Nungesser said the government has asked crews to move the dredging site two more miles farther off the coastline.

"Once again, our government resource agencies, which are intended to protect us, are now leaving us vulnerable to the destruction of our coastline and marshes by the impending oil," Nungesser wrote to Obama.


read the comments on this page, very interesting.




posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by OuttaTime
Whether or not this judge has investments in the energy/oil business is still interesting in itself. My question is how can a judge overrule a presidential decision if the prezzie has the power to veto congress and senate? Doesn't that seem kinda odd?


Constitutional checks and balances. It was a federal court. The government has the right to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


Exactly, Is nice to see that when it comes to the public way to access information, is always those that will dig deep and hard to find what is motivating the whores that hold position of power in our nation that affect mostly negatively when it comes to the safety of others but their pockets

If nothing is done, then the good ole people will blame the Obama administration from not doing enough, but then when money is at stake, Profits and everything link to it, then people are played to scream foul play.

What is it people profits or safety you decide because sometimes they do not come together in our corporate run governemnt.



[edit on 23-6-2010 by marg6043]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Oh geez people. If he owned it in 2008 then he still owns it now. No way is he going to sell in 2008 or 2009. That man is still holding that stock praying to God that it goes back up in value.

I dont like Obama, but I do respect his decision to ban drilling in the gulf. It is out of controll right now. They know nothing about the situation and they sure as heck dont need to be poking around down there untill they know more. I dont think there is a single person who can argue with the fact that thry are already in over their heads.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Stomdancer, this big, what this means? why the government is taking away the only way right now to keep the coast safe until the clean up can deliver results? the oil leak is still active oil it has not been stopped yet.

I don't get it, have you seen the pictures of the tar in the beaches in Pensacola?



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
We need offshore drilling, I am not about to pay 5+ bucks a gallon for oil because some tree huggers are going to point to this staged event as an example of why we shouldn't be energy independent!!!!



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by mrsdudara
 


It could be also a political move, see if Obama is sleeping with oil companies. We know most politicians do.

Then to appease the outraged population with mid term elections so close he will put up a front of concern for safety.

But at the same time having people complaining about lost income, more so because the tourist and fish industry taking such a big hit

The oil drilling ban in the gulf will make things easier for the big oil companies to reverse the ban as then they can claim that the people wanted oil drilling to continue no the administrationt that only have the safety of the nation at hart.

Sometimes I wonder who is really the ones been played in here.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
I wish there was a good answer to clean up this mess. I know that while it is in the gulf it is still out of sight out of mind, but if it all came to shore, wouldnt it be easier to clean up? As it is, it will be in the water forever, especially since they dropped the chemicals on it. If it is on our beaches, then we could at least start cleaning it up and do something with it couldnt we?



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 


Dear if you have not learned by now that the entire oil prices is nothing but a Hoax player at the expenses of the America people you have not learned anything since the last price hike in the 70s with the US create oil crisis and the one that was played in the 80s and then recently a few years back.

Is nothig but govenemnt and big oil manipulations, we may say that if prices are hiked again the whole oil leak disaster and upcoming prices are nothing but another conspiracy as the ones before in the last 30 years.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Stomdancer, this big, what this means? why the government is taking away the only way right now to keep the coast safe until the clean up can deliver results? the oil leak is still active oil it has not been stopped yet.

I don't get it, have you seen the pictures of the tar in the beaches in Pensacola?



No I haven't seen the pictures, but it looks like we are at war with our own government, that is determined to bring down America on so many levels.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


They are playing us and people now think that is the media the one doing the playing, I tell you is our own government playing us so people will scream to let oil drilling to keep doing the crap they are doing in the gulf with no safety standards and regulations.

The tar in Pensacola is now all over the water no just washing into the beaches, is not way that people can use the beaches in the state they are now.



[edit on 23-6-2010 by marg6043]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by tetrahedron
"My question is how can a judge overrule a presidential decision if the prezzie has the power to veto congress and senate?"

This is intrastate commerce. Theoretically beyond the purview of the federal government.


That answer is so bad it doesn't even rise to the level of being wrong. Not only is it interstate, it is international commerce. Let's see, the leased DH rig is Korean built, owned by a Swiss company and registered in the Marshall Islands. The well is outside the littoral waters of Louisiana. The oil goes to the BP refinery in Texas City, TX and into cars in many states and now on beaches in 4 states. Well sevices are performed by Halliburton (TX), andSchlumberger (TX). And that's only the BP operation. Chevron, based in CA, also drills offshore.
The real answer is that the action banning the drilling was an Administrative Action, as defined in the APA, or Administrative Procedures Act (Title 5, United States Code, Sections 500 et seq) and as such is subject to judicial review. Take a look at Chapter 7 of the Title. The 79th Congress passed a law, 60 Stat 208, saying that regulatory actions of the Executive Branch and its agencies could be the subject of a judge's review, on proper application.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Ok, i'll try to be gentle.

The judge's decision is clearly in regards to the waters off LA. (archive.stateline.org...) LA judges do not have jurisdiction outside of LA. News of the tautological.

It does not matter what company is from where, where the regulations are enforced from, etc.

Hence, intrastate commerce.

Ignoramus.




[edit on 23-6-2010 by tetrahedron]

[edit on 23-6-2010 by tetrahedron]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Personally I think this is a good find, and very interesting.

I agree it would be difficult to find anyone who has any clout or power, who is NOT someway affiliated with the oil industry, even if it is only owning some stock.

....Especially in oil territory.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


And that is only oil, we got from financial to just about any corporate pimp that have the money to buy out the politicraps we got in this nation.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by tetrahedron
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Ok, i'll try to be gentle.

The judge's decision is clearly in regards to the waters off LA. (archive.stateline.org...) LA judges do not have jurisdiction outside of LA. News of the tautological.

It does not matter what company is from where, where the regulations are enforced from, etc.

Hence, intrastate commerce.

Ignoramus.




[edit on 23-6-2010 by tetrahedron]

[edit on 23-6-2010 by tetrahedron]


I must have missed your case law citations for the cases providing support for your absurd proposition. And where did you get your law degree. The judge is a Federal judge appointed by Reagan. It is an Article 2 Court having jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq. If Delta Airlines flies from New Orleans to Baton Rouge, it is still subject to federal regulation and control by the FAA. The law is that it is the impact on intrastate commerce which triggers the "Commerce clause" . You may not like it but that has been the law of the land since 1805.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Are you mistaking inter for intra here? The commerce clause regards interstate, not intrastate, commerce.

Judge Felding’s ruling is a preliminary injunction against Salazar’s “arbitrary” ban under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The reason an LA judge took up the case is because there are thousands of rigs in the Littoral waters of LA. Its simply tautological. LA judges have jurisdiction over things regarding LA. Of course the case is more complex than that and the federal government has the ultimate authority (the crux of Felding’s injunction is the arbitrary nature of the decision and the misinterpretation and misappropriation of scientists’ testimony).

Full text: www.laed.uscourts.gov...



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by whoshotJR
It was under 15k, this could be in a mutual fund in his retirement even.


No matter what it's for it has conflict of interest written all over it in plain black and white.

It also seems a bit convenient to me.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Lets not forget the 11 oil workers that died. If we go back to usual and not make things safer.. then the oil companies win and the workers loose.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Anybody know anything about this lecture? Seems to be a interesting topic for Judge Feldman to be lecturing on.


The Supreme Court as Commander in Chief
Posted April 5th, 2010 by Tommy Sturgeon
Please join us in welcoming Judge Martin L.C. Feldman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, as he discusses this timely and engaging topic. Professor Luke Milligan will provide commentary.

Lunch is provided.

Room 175

12:00-1:00



www.law.louisville.edu...



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join