Scientists Opposed to Moratorium Confront Salazar
[Guest post by DRJ]
This is astounding:
“The group of experts complained earlier this month that Salazar had consulted them on a May 27 report on drilling safety and then falsely implied that the scientists had agreed to a “blanket moratorium” that they actually opposed. They said the moratorium went too far and warned that it “will have a lasting impact on the nation’s economy which may be greater than that of the oil spill.”
The Department of the Interior later said it didn’t intend to imply that the experts had supported the moratorium. But the dispute has become more than a simple misunderstanding. The experts’ claims are a central part of a federal lawsuit in New Orleans that seeks to block the moratorium.”
An industry expert listed four reasons why the moratorium is a terrible idea — that it’s risky to start and stop; that new rigs will leave; that skilled workers will leave; and that it will increase U.S. reliance on foreign oil.
I hope this was presented in the preliminary injunction hearing today in Judge Feldman’s New Orleans’ courtroom. Given the source of this report is the New Orleans Times-Picayune, I suspect it was.
— DRJ
Those four reasons DRJ quoted seem extremely compelling. Then again, anyone paying enough attention to think about them is already in the 44% strongly opposed to Obama’s performance. He doesn’t care about them at this point, and so the only reason he would reverse course is if he actually gives a flip that this makes our nation less safe from oil spills, rather than safer.
And I don’t trust him to care that much about it. It’s in Obama’s best interest if Judge Feldman saves him from his own decision, but how much does it hurt him?
I think he’s gunning for low information voters more than ever before, and realizes they will never see this issue on Good Morning America or their local news channel.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 6/21/2010 @ 9:48 pmDon’t you get it?
Drilling for oil within the territory of the United States, or in its Territorial Waters, is harmful to the environment.
The use of petroleum is killing the Earth because of Global Climate Change.
Importing petroleum from the Third-World is just enriching our enemies and funding the terrorist threat that wishes us dead.
So, no more petroleum use, no drilling here, and no imports. We must scale back the economy to that which is sustainable through “clean energy” and reduce the carbon foot-print that is destroying Mother Gaia.
We shall curse the darkness, shivering in our caves.
AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb) — 6/21/2010 @ 9:52 pmNow, if only the batteries hold out in these night-vision devices…
Comment by Dustin — 6/21/2010 @ 9:48 pm
Careful how you use the word “gunning”.
AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb) — 6/21/2010 @ 9:54 pmHeck of a job there, Barry
BradnSA (980254) — 6/21/2010 @ 10:06 pmwhat utter horseshit…..
Ear Leader needs to go, and his supporters can go to hell.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 6/21/2010 @ 10:13 pmMost every judge I’ve ever encountered would look at this complaint, whisper “political question”, and start rolling their big chair backwards ’til they were back in chambers.
If they can come up with some good reason why this exceeds presidential powers, they might have a shot. Instead, they seem to be arguing (compellingly) that the moratorium is a stupid idea.
Even the “unlawful taking” argument falls back on that main theme of poor execution of valid powers (i.e., he can take, but he must compensate if he does.) Plus, there are money damages available which could make the plaintiffs’ whole, which should preclude any injunctive relief.
But a court can’t overrule the president based on its determination that he’s doing executive-branch stuff stupidly. If a prez can take some action, he’s free to take it stupidly without court interference. It’s only when the prez simply cannot take action that a court can rule against him.
bobby b (4baf73) — 6/21/2010 @ 11:02 pmActually, the issue in the New Orleans’ case is whether the government acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or an abuse of discretion under administrative law rules. If there is evidence of that, the court will evaluate how to maintain the status quo pending trial.
A takings claim hasn’t been plead (yet) in the New Orleans’ lawsuit. And it doesn’t look like Judge Feldman considers this a political matter.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 6/21/2010 @ 11:12 pm“Most every judge I’ve ever encountered would look at this complaint, whisper “political question””
Another Mensa Master arrives. bobby b, do you know Chris Hooten?
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/21/2010 @ 11:14 pmit’s even more astounding when you juxtapose the qualifications of the experts that America is ignoring with the activists the little president man wants to let decide the future of offshore drilling
happyfeet (19c1da) — 6/21/2010 @ 11:14 pmMr. Feets – You can’t expect people who actually know what they are doing to make decisions in the Obama Administration. That’s crazy thinking!
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 6/21/2010 @ 11:28 pm1. Thanks for the link, but I’ve read the pleadings. The P’s best shot is if the Obambots didn’t properly follow the notice procedure per APA/OSCLA. If they didn’t, then they acted arb/cap, outside of the powers of the agency. If they did the process correctly, but the P’s just argue that Obama has undervalued the Ps’ rights, it’s not arbitrary – it’s just stupid, which, as I said, is allowable.
2. If Obama/Holder simply file the safety evals submitted by the five big companies (remember – all the reports were identical, and meaningless, and in fact they all listed some dead guy as their first call-contact in the event of a major spill), they’ll have satisfied that “systematic noncompliance” required showing – which sounds like the Ps’ main APA-allowed argument.
3. What’s a Chris Hooten? What’s a Mensa Master? Are these just ad-homs? Are you not worth the discussion?
bobby b (4baf73) — 6/21/2010 @ 11:57 pmIt is all about convincing you Propeller Head really should be starting Point Guard.
HeavenSent (a9126d) — 6/22/2010 @ 4:08 amThanks for the link, but I’ve read the pleadings.
Ah, so you’re an eminent legal scholar, we assume.
it’s not arbitrary – it’s just stupid, which, as I said, is allowable.
That’s some real brilliant legalese you got there, Mr. Darrow.
Are you not worth the discussion?
One thing we do know is that you’re definitely not.
Dmac (cfe27e) — 6/22/2010 @ 6:58 amGah, this admin just does whatever they want. No plan, no ideas, no skills, no nothing…just whatever feels good today.
He’s even worse than Carter.
Andy (b63f79) — 6/22/2010 @ 9:22 amRemember when the leftists were claiming to be in favor of science, and calling everyone else deniers? Crickets, now.
JD (5375e6) — 6/22/2010 @ 9:26 amMy apologies to Dove soap….
Anything the Obama administration says or does can be considered to be 99 and 44/100ths pure BS.
NavyspyII (df615d) — 6/22/2010 @ 10:18 ambreaking news. a federal judge just blocked the moritorium.
i got that from cnn.
Which means i have to eat crow on this point. I doubted this would happen in the last thread. To a certain extent, i am glad to be wrong.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/22/2010 @ 10:55 amHurray for a great patriot, Judge Feldman!
Patricia (160852) — 6/22/2010 @ 10:57 amInteresting post over at HotAir on whether or not the Feds should just take over LA as a failed state (the author is really out in left field), but the commentary is pretty good, mostly along the lines of NY, NJ, IL, MI, CA, first.
My first reaction was that Lincoln sent the troops South to re-unite the Union, Obama will send them South to re-ignite the Civil War – whether or not he intends to.
Plus, there was something (but I can’t find it at this time) predicting the BK filing of BP, either in North America, or World-wide, to protect themselves from the confiscation of assets by this administration.
AD - RtR/OS! (2480c8) — 6/22/2010 @ 11:34 amI would absolutely love it if the Feds take over IL – they’re in league with The Combine here anyway, they can own it.
Dmac (cfe27e) — 6/22/2010 @ 11:46 am