Breaking: Obama Administration Held in Contempt Over Gulf Drilling Moratorium
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
Update: You can read the opinion, here. The issue was purely a matter of attorneys’ fees as sanctions. There is not, at the moment, any indication that any further action is being contemplated by the courts.
It is really breathtaking how lawless this administration is.
Obama is getting no love from the courts these days. Remember how the judge down in New Orleans struck down the drilling moratorium? And remember how his administration has flouted the ruling?
Well, the chickens have come home to roost:
U.S. Adminstration In Contempt Over Gulf Drilling Moratorium, Judge Rules
The Obama Administration acted in contempt by continuing its deepwater-drilling moratorium after the policy was struck down, a New Orleans judge ruled.
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.
They have ordered the government to pay for the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees. But it is not clear what other sanctions may have been imposed. What the courts can do is unclear, but if we were behaving rationally, we would have Congress go to the president and tell him either to obey the order (while challenging it through the normal appeals process), or face impeachment. But I ain’t holding my breath.
Hat tip: Hot Air.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
it’s “Regime”, not “Administration”…
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:54 pmNice to know our own special constitutional scholar routinely circumvents the laws of the country.
Dmac (498ece) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:56 pmA federal judge declared Obamacare unconstitutional , and the barcky admin shrugs their shoulders, and just keeps right on going, while the Senate votes against repealing an unconstitutional bill.
Just imagine, for a moment, how the left and the MFM would be hyperventilating were the above actions done by Bush.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 12:57 pmYep, elect Obama because of the urgency of getting rid of a lawless government…
not.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:01 pmIs this the same judge who owned stock in Exxon Mobile and other energy companies, including TransOcean which operated the BP rig, but who refused to recuse himself?
Hmmmmm……
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:06 pmSo, Kman…it should be a slam-dunk on appeal then, right?
…or are you just full of it?
MJN1957 (6e1275) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:17 pmKman, is it? Too lazy to find out if that allegation was true?
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:18 pmTypical leftist BS, kmart.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:19 pmKman
that is defamatory. Yes, he ONCE owned stock in those companies. there is no evidence that when he ruled he owned those stocks. And given the attention in the case, i cannot believe he would have been allowed to stay on if he had those stocks.
every time i think you can’t sink lower, you prove me wrong.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:19 pm#5 Most Government Union Workers vote Democrat so they can buy pay raises and job security. Their Unions give big money to Democrats. Hmmmm……..
I love when d-bag Libtard bring up conflict of interest arguments and fail to ignore the disproportionately massive fraud and theft done by Democrats for the purpose of winning elections and further lining their pockets.
I feel like they are calling me a degenerate for looking at porn while they are busy shoving their cock up a minors ass.
Makes me want to make them simply disappear.
Torquemada (2a42d3) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:24 pmKmart approves of the executive branch ignoring the judicial branch, flipping them the bird.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:32 pmjd
and amazingingly according to Kman, the constitution is whatever the courts say it is. so i guess all this judge has to do is say that the constitution allows him to own stock in the oil companies and still sit on the case.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:38 pmOh, no. He was no dummy. He sold the stock in Exxon Mobil … less than five hours before he struck down the moratorium.
So TECHNiCALLY he didn’t own those stocks at the exact moment he ruled. Wink, wink.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:39 pmI swear to Allah that kmart never reads it’s own links, learned to link from gleenwald, or is just fundamentally dishonest. Or, all of the above.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:43 pmWhat JD said. Expect the O-regime to obey the court in this decision to the same extent they will obey it in face of the Vinson decision. namely, not at all.
Tully (62151d) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:43 pmWas Exxon a party to that case?
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:43 pmkmart admitted that his #5 was dishonest when it posted it’s last link.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:44 pmKman, you didn’t notice that your own link showed you were wrong, did you? That’s what I meant when I commented that you were too f**king lazy to verify your own allegation.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:45 pmKman: Is this the same judge who owned stock in Exxon Mobile and other energy companies, including TransOcean which operated the BP rig, but who refused to recuse himself?
From his own link:
So the answer, Kman, is that you were too lazy to verify your ultimately false allegation. The judge did not own Transocean and Exxon was not a party to the case. This is why the ethical issues of the case are not as black and white as the partisans want to make it out to be.
This is why I continue to call you incompetent and dishonest.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:49 pmKman
The “technicality” is everything. The rule against a judge owning stock in the company the judge is are ruling on, or is potentially affected by his ruling, is to prevent a judge from ruling based on financial motivation (or the appearance thereof). Once he sells the stock, the financial motivation is indisputably gone. i am willing to bet that after the ruling came down Exxon’s stock rose, meaning that he forwent a tidy profit.
Your complaint then comes down to a concern that he has “oil cooties.”
I am going to suggest to patterico that we remove every single comment from you defaming this judge, if only because we could be sued for your stupidity. you have really crossed a line, here.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:54 pmSPQR
> This is why the ethical issues of the case are not as black and white as the partisans want to make it out to be.
with respect, it IS black and white. It is 100% clear that no ethical violation occurred.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:56 pmWhat would happen if a part to this suit took something to the judge asking for a permit, in a manner of injunctive relief, since the Dept Interior is not living up to it’s duties?
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 1:57 pmThe ‘Articles of Impeachment’ collected against one Barack Hussein Obama are a living document.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 2/3/2011 @ 2:00 pmWhat a peculiar thing to say. I love the capitalization.
Ooooo, he was willing to own stock in oil companies sometimes. Even though he had no way to gain from his ruling, his willingness to oil oil stock years ago proves he is completely unfair as a judge!!!
Wink wink?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 2:05 pmkmart is indeed a duplicitious dumb f-ck of unimaginable proportions.
Dmac (498ece) — 2/3/2011 @ 2:07 pmIndeed, Aaron, Kman trades in cheap smear and innuendo without a clue to reality.
The reality is that the process in his court was probably to have his clerks check his financial disclosures against the plaintiffs and defendants listed in cases. Exxon probably did not come up in that search. It wasn’t until later that someone probably mentioned it, and he decided to dispose of the holdings specifically to avoid the implication. But Kman decides the opposite, that this was something to use to tar the man.
There is no reason to believe that the judge cared one whit about whether or not his financial holdings changed due to the decision.
But that does not stop people like Kman, who have no substantive argument about the fact that the Obama administration did engage in fraud in the drilling moratorium order, to merely slander those who are inconvenient to their view of lawless rule.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/3/2011 @ 2:07 pmThey were on the side of science-y, SPQR. Y teabagger denialists should be ashamed.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 2:10 pmJD, one thing is consistent about Kman. Every time he makes a factual claim to buttress his opinions, it turns out that he’s wrong about a fundamental fact.
You would think someone who was wrong so much about the foundation of his opinions would realize there was a problem.
But nope, Kman blindly continues onward.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/3/2011 @ 2:12 pmLawyer type people – would ther be any way to get a permit by way of injunctive relief from the Court? Alone similar lines, could a company that does not have a BarckyCare waiver, or one that was denied a waiver, have standing to bring an action against BarckyCare?
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 2:16 pmDustin
> Ooooo, he was willing to own stock in oil companies sometimes.
exactly what i meant when i said “oil cooties.”
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/3/2011 @ 2:21 pm“Kmart approves of the executive branch ignoring the judicial branch, flipping them the bird.”
JD – According to Chuck Schumer, the Judicial Branch does not exist.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/3/2011 @ 2:25 pmMeanwhile, the Obama administration gives GE a waiver from its global warming rules.
But Kman is only worried about Judge Feldman having a few dollars in Exxon.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/3/2011 @ 2:26 pmThese waivers are becoming rather noxious.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 2:27 pmdaley
i saw that. and ironically schumer is on the senate judiciary committee…
and remember, schumer is smart and palin is dumb.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/3/2011 @ 2:30 pmIf I was the President,
the minute the
Congressjudges called my nameI’d say, “Who do,
who do you think you’re foolin?”
I’ve got the Presidential seal,
I’m on the Presidential podium,
My people love me, they love me…”
They stand on their feet and love me,
Sayin’, “It’s our Barach!!
It’s our Barach, oh Baby!!!”
They love me.
(They love me, love me, love me)
“It’s our Barach!!
(They love me, love me, love me)
“It’s our Barach!!
(They love me, love me, love me)
“It’s our Barach!!
(They love me, love me, love me)
Apologies to P. Simon
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/3/2011 @ 2:37 pmI do think it is considerate of Kman to save us the work of finding references that show him wrong, I mean, think how much nicer life would be if Obama did that too.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/3/2011 @ 2:40 pmFrankly, at this point I don’t really care if the judge owned one of companies outright.
Liberals celebrate corruption and place themselves above the law. Laws are meaningless if they don’t apply to everyone. So if a liberal makes a claim of corruption… why should anyone care?
malclave (4f3ec1) — 2/3/2011 @ 2:48 pmThis judge is late to the party. I held the Obama Administration in contempt way before the drilling moratorium.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/3/2011 @ 3:05 pmGood ruling, but guess who ultimately pays the attorneys’ fees?
lasue (ed9852) — 2/3/2011 @ 3:10 pmObama should be held in contempt for just being Obama. Oh and Kman, what about all those waivers Brackula has issued for his healthplan to such gentile souls as SEIU? I am sure you can explain to someone as dense as me as to how their campaign contributions did not in any way influence said waiver? Or just like BO selling out GM bondholders to pay off the UAW? I await your englightenment.
BT (74cbec) — 2/3/2011 @ 3:13 pmI condemn the politicization of the Justice Department by George W. Bush.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 2/3/2011 @ 3:48 pmI also think that Congress should never be allowed to give themselves a ‘waiver’ from any law they pass for the rest of us. They should have to follow the health care laws they have burdened the rest of us with. And Social Security etc. Equal protection under the law should never let Congress opt out of any law that I am forced to follow.
On topic, I am not sure if the plaintiff can be made whole. Too many rigs and jobs have left the coast. Governor Jindal should start a suit to force the government to stop the economic attack via the lawless act of the moratorium. No way all the businesses ruined by this can be made whole.
If California can have a waiver for it’s power plants, the rest of the country should sue for equal protection from the EPA…
Texas Mom 2012 (cee89f) — 2/3/2011 @ 3:49 pmIn a footnote to his ruling, Judge Feldman has held that kmart is a .ucking .sshole!
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 2/3/2011 @ 3:53 pmTexas Mom 2012 #42 – Take a look here – an example of how things *should* be done … (and were done under a GOP House and Senate) … in 1995, the very first Bill of the first GOP House in 40 years was to make Capitol Hill subject to the same laws as the rest of us … why do you think the Dems don’t like the GOP ?
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 2/3/2011 @ 4:17 pmThis isn’t about oil or energy or money or jobs. All public servants swore “to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign or domestic.”
If our President refuses to enforce the law of the land, ignores court orders, and circumvents the legislature, why should the citizens refrain from taking up arms against his administration when all other remedies have failed? Isn’t that precisely why the second amendment was placed in the bill of rights?
Arch (24f4f2) — 2/3/2011 @ 4:44 pm#1 absolutely correct. REGIME. And a contemptible one at that.
LeonidasOfSparta (c9c010) — 2/3/2011 @ 4:46 pm______________________________________
It is really breathtaking how lawless this administration is.
But it’s okay just as long as one is compassionate, humane, generous, loving and heartfelt. Just as long as one is “progressive” and full of do-gooder sentiments.
Intentions are far, far more important than actions and deeds. The ends justify the means. I’m okay, you’re okay.
And in the words of a former close spiritual adviser to the president: “America, you’re chickens are coming home to roost!”
Mark (411533) — 2/3/2011 @ 5:06 pmConflict of interest on the judge’s part? Shucks, his stock pickins’ were just entrepreneurship, sort of like the kind that saw BP take shortcut after shortcut to save money, which led directly to the spill.
Larry Reilly (0e1b2d) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:43 pmYou know what saving money as a motive means in this situation, dontcha? It means punitive damages. Yeah, boy. Just wait.
Didja notice a while back that the BP settlement with the little folks requires them not just to give up their right to sue BP, but to assign that right to BP, uh, probably so it can go after Transocean et al.?
Obama administration is lawless, you say. Breathtaking, huh.
Just wait until all the cows come home.
And gotta love the way you so easily divorce the judge’s previous stock ownership and mindset of yesterday from the tiny wheels turning in his mind today. Don’t think you would be so generous if the example went against your own ideological fervor.
Larry Reilly, again you repeat false claims.
What is it about making up stuff that makes you feel better about yourself?
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:47 pmDidja notice a while back that the BP settlement with the little folks requires them not just to give up their right to sue BP, but to assign that right to BP, uh, probably so it can go after Transocean et al.?
Larry, didja notice that the government’s settlement with Goldman Sachs allows GS to not admit any wrongdoing, despite the mountain of evidence of their role in the 2008 crash? And that was a civil suit, not a criminal case.
Yeah, the Obama administration is lawless–they can’t even be bothered to prosecute blatant, naked fraud when it occurs, despite the fact that they have the SEC, the FBI, the CIA, the DHS, the BATF, and an Attorney General that they can all bring to bear. So spare us your semi-literate gas, you waste of carbon molecules.
Another Chris (67858a) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:48 pmHohum, a federal District Judge finds Obama in contempt. I’d say that he (the Judge) is simply late to the party. I’ve held Obama in contempt for a long time–just my own personal view.
Mike Myers (0e06a9) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:54 pmAnd you know, as long as I’m up and thinking about it, I’ve held many of the weasels, sock puppets, trolls and such that so fervently worship Obama–I’ve held them in contempt too.
Mike Myers (0e06a9) — 2/3/2011 @ 6:55 pmLarry Reilly – No need to get snippy. With Obama at the helm, windmills and magic beans will solve all our energy needs and everybody will get around by electric cars and high speed rail in just a couple of years. Nobody will be able to afford petroleum or coal based products even if we are still allowed to get them out of the ground. It’s called WINNING THE FUTURE (WTF). Obama talked about it last week. Spain tried it and it almost bankrupted the country. Obama doesn’t like to talk about that anymore, but it’s our turn next! Suh-weeeeeet!
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:04 pmDaleyrocks – not only bankrupt, but over 20% unemployment.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:07 pmJD – I want my magic beans and I’m still waiting for Obama to pay my freaking mortgage. Beyotch can’t keep any promises.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:11 pmHow soon will the Obama Administration be held in contempt for trying to enforce and enable the unconstitutional Obamanationcare law? Bet we won’t see this trumpeted for days, let alone weeks or years, like what would have happened if a republican administration was held in contempt of court for violating environmental laws and regulations. But nothing to see here.
eaglewingz08 (74f660) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:12 pmGet a grip, Wendy Whiner. 🙂
The issue of the judge’s alleged (happy?) conflict of interest was discussed in every major newspaper and hundreds of blogs.
Kman (26c32e) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:24 pm_______________________________________
Didja notice a while back that the BP settlement
I love the irony that BP — at least prior to the debacle in the Gulf — was considered green friendly and rather favorable to politicians and policies of the left. IOW, call them a corporate version of a big fat limousine liberal.
If I can get really smirky and snarky about this, I can also say the ideological symbolism of BP is not too hugely different from that of the Arizona Congresswoman and, back in 1963, JFK getting gunned down by folks aligned with the left (albeit far left), not the right.
Mark (411533) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:27 pmIt was discussed, and dismissed as abject dishonesty from the left. Which you continue to parrot.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:30 pmThe issue of the judge’s alleged (happy?) conflict of interest was discussed in every major newspaper and hundreds of blogs.
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DISCUSSED IT! IT MUST BE TRUE!
Another Chris (67858a) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:34 pmOne finds that all of the ‘Legion of Doom’ from BP,
narciso (e888ae) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:37 pmto Goldman, to (for the purposes of this conversation) Mubarak all end up represented by
Podesta’s outfit, while being under attack from the other side, at least in part.
Kmart approves of the executive branch ignoring the judicial.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 7:54 pmSo, I guess we can all assume that Larry knows Judge Martin not only personally, but also in a way that he is able to devine motives for the judge’s actions, despite the judge’s oaths to the nation and the law.
My only conclusion is that Larry must be closely related to the justice and is miffed about the lack of Cheetos in the pantry and the lack of Mountain Dew in the fridge.
Ag80 (e03e7a) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:03 pmMaybe the judge was acting in good faith according to the law. That could happen.
Ag80 (e03e7a) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:10 pmIt seems the administration thinks federal court decisions carry no weight. Not only did they ignore the deep water drilling moratorium decision, they did precisely the same with the FCC. The FCC simply ignored the unanimous decision of the 10th Circuit that they lacked the authority to control the internet. So nine months after that they issued regulations to control the internet, which Verizon is now challenging.
The Big Bad for the FCC is this case most likely will land back at the same 10th Circuit and with the same judges that issued the earlier ruling. I have found judges take an intense dislike to folks who ignore their decisions.
Corky Boyd (d787be) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:11 pmGood one, Corky. They have shown so much disdain for our systems, that I had forgotten about that one.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:16 pmYou know what I think? I think we need a new Attorney General. The one we have does not seem to be very good at his job.
elissa (9efa48) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:18 pmKman
> The issue of the judge’s alleged (happy?) conflict of interest was discussed in every major newspaper and hundreds of blogs
You are allegedly (happy?) a lawyer, and you should know there is no issue.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:43 pmContempt over gulf drilling moratorium, over FCC regulating the internet, and perhaps over moving forward on implimenting ObamaCare. How many times does the executive branch get to ignore the judicial branch before something of consequence happens?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:51 pmelissa – How was your broccoli tonight?
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/3/2011 @ 8:57 pmdaley– we had shrooms in cream sauce tonight. No broccoli on hand and due to a snow plow’s hydraulics breaking down and stalling in our driveway we are still unable to get the car out of the garage to go buy fresh provisions. Thank you for asking.
elissa (9efa48) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:06 pmMD – Maybe the MFM might take note of that sometime, no?
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:09 pmCorrupt Judging 101:
East Bay Jay (19f566) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:20 pm1) Buy Oil Industry stock
2) Sell Oil Industry stock
3) Make ruling to make oil industry stock go up
4) TBD
5) Profit Like Crazy
elissa – Bad luck on the plow. I was out and about last night. It was great. Conditions not great, but virtually nobody on the roads.
A day without broccoli is like a day without sunshine, or something.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:22 pmWhat was that line from ‘All the President’s Men’
narciso (e888ae) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:25 pmfollow the money, who materially benefits from the crippling of US domestic supply, and new exploration in Brazil and other places. Bueller, Bueller.
Regarding Judge Feldman’s financial interests and disqualification:
According to the docket in Hornbeck vs Salazar, the Obama Administration did not contest Judge Feldman’s qualifications but environmental intervenors did move to disqualify Judge Feldman on July 2, 2010. He denied their motion on July 16, 2010. Intervenors subsequently petitioned for a writ of mandamus, the procedural method to appeal denial of a motion to disqualify, and the Fifth Circuit denied the writ on August 13, 2010.
Since then, the Fifth Circuit has issued two orders in Hornbeck vs Salazar — one in August 2010 and the other in September 2010 — and both recognize Judge Feldman’s continuing jurisdiction over the case. By the way, the Obama Administration’s appeal of Judge Feldman’s original injunction has since been dismissed as moot. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit held that the Obama Administration’s withdrawal of its first drilling moratorium mooted the original injunction, and I suspect subsequent proceedings have focused on whether the Obama Administration withdrew and reissued the moratorium to avoid the injunction. If so, that would be grounds for contempt.
DRJ (fdd243) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:38 pmone of those informative posts i get interested reading with. this is very helpful not just to bloggers but also to those readers out there.
fashion blogger (83caac) — 2/3/2011 @ 11:02 pmSpam comment cleanup in aisle 2…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/3/2011 @ 11:14 pmBarack Obama is ruling by executive order, ignoring the U.S. Constitution.
He is in contempt of court with respect to offshore drilling, FCC regulation of the Internet, and health care. Obama defies Congress by imposing carbon restrictions through the EPA. His friends are given special treatment (waivers) in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Eric Holder is discriminating against whites in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. He has sued Arizona ignoring their Section 10 right to defend against invasion.
Janet Napolatino violates the Fourth Amendment and the Patriot Act with every TSA search.
Timothy Geithner violates Section 9 appropriations clause with every dollar monetized.
“What, then should we do?”
Arch (24f4f2) — 2/4/2011 @ 3:15 amThe House held two Bush aides, including Harriet Miers, in contempt and a judge out west threatened to hold the head of the US Forest Service in contempt.
Jim (ad29d8) — 2/4/2011 @ 5:46 amWait – Kman is a lawyer?
carlitos (09dd72) — 2/4/2011 @ 6:33 amall those jobs it’s just pitiful
happyfeet (ab5779) — 2/4/2011 @ 6:33 amPreznit Bush’s signing statements were “building blocks to dictatorship,” though. This contempt of court thing is way less serious than that.
Wait, what?
Unitary executive!1!!!1
carlitos (09dd72) — 2/4/2011 @ 6:44 amCan anyone say, Impeachment? I can…
celebs4truth (5d839b) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:00 amObviously, AW, there was an issue. This is why it was reported widely. Take a position on the issue if you want, but don’t lie by denying that there is one.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:03 amObviously there was an issue because of the accusations! And anyone who called this right from the beginning is a LIAR!!!!
Yep, Kman, you’re not a dishonest hack.
Can you just shut up, though? You’re not even making an argument beyond ‘you’re lying! I know I’m right because I heard someone say so!’
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:11 am“there was an issue. This is why it was reported widely.”
You mean there are rumors of sightings of evidence the Joooos drink babies blood?
Yeah, the cockroaches have a prayer of dragging this stiff thru to nomination Sept. 2012, but the screaming and hollering will be unbearable.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:15 amThe fact that something is “widely reported” and is the source of internet debate means that it is an issue that must be taken seriously?
Run for the hills everybody!
Blue Ox (ff919a) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:22 amNo, it just means that patterico isn’t going to get sued because someone on his site suggested that the judge had a conflict of interest.
I pointed out that the story was “widely reported” in response to AW clutching his pearls with his pants-wetting “how DARE you suggest such a thing! That is defamatory!”
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:29 amActually, there wasn’t an issue. A lot of news outlets made noise when there wasn’t any there there.
Conflict of interest rules are in place so that judges won’t benefit financially from their rulings. How in the world would the judge benefit if he sold his stock before he issued the ruling?
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:31 amIt’s not even a complicated call. Did the judge have a financial stake in his decision? No. No more than I have a stake in the house I sold years ago.
There was no issue. Kman calling someone a liar for a simple truth is typical of him, but it’s pretty amazing to read.
Remember, Kman’s been screaming that Aaron’s a liar for many years (I forget how many. 9?) based on arguments like this. He’s heard an accusation, it’s proven obviously wrong, and Aaron says it’s wrong, so Aaron’s a liar. Day in, day out. Emails to Aaron, Blog comments, complaints about Kman’s inability to get a boyfriend.
And there’s just no reasoning behind it. Even if Kman’s read Aaron’s post, or the article (which is quite rare), he’s not constrained to reality or logic.
Let’s hope he’s equally honest about being an attorney. An attorney you can’t trust is a ticking timebomb.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:34 amDoesn’t matter. Judicial Canon #2 talks about the appearance of impropriety. Now, reasonable minds can differ on whether his actions APPEARED to be wrong, but it’s just silly to say there is “no issue” at all.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:45 amThis is why it was reported widely.
This is the kind of the reasoning that can only come from our own little pet Trolly – many idiots repeat a canard, and thus it is so.
If we all proceed to call you an unreconstructed moron, then it must be true. Let me be the first to start this glorious reportage of fact.
Dmac (498ece) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:47 amJudicial Canon #2 talks about the appearance of impropriety
And lo, when the multitudes took note of this sentence and screeched it to the heavens, it was thus declared so – thus sayeth kmart; Romans, Abject Asshattery edition.
Dmac (498ece) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:49 am“Now, reasonable minds can differ on whether his actions APPEARED to be wrong”
See, that’s where you ran into a problem right there.
Blue Ox (ff919a) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:53 amFrom the account you linked, it is apparent that as soon as the judge realized there was a potential conflict, he ordered the immediate sale of his stock.
Again, how is this even the appearance of impropriety? Unless you want to argue that judges should never hold any investments whatsoever, and just sew their money into their mattresses at home.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/4/2011 @ 8:03 amI know many judges who don’t hold investments, and believe no judge should. It’s not an absurd proposition (although the more reasonable one is to have all investments done blindly).
But in any event, the judicial canon of ethics impose on a judge the duty to know what financial stake he might have, if any, in a case… and recuse himself (or address the issue) before he takes the case. Not a few hours before he rules on the case, as this judge did.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/4/2011 @ 8:14 amGinsberg represented Planned Parenthood, yes? That gives the appearance of impropriety to me on anything…
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/4/2011 @ 8:17 amHAHAHAHA
What a freaking kook. This is how far he’s willing to go in order to call Aaron a liar. The plain truth is that the judge didn’t have any financial stake in his ruling. There was no issue. Kman invents an absurd standard, that anyone who ever owns an investment has an “issue” under his peculiar standard, and anyone who disagrees with this is a “liar” (because Aaron disagreed, and anything Aaron says must be defined as a lie or Kman has a heart attack).
Judges are already poorly compensated. I don’t want corruption. Kman does. Their workload is already substantial, and it’s difficult to get the job. The plain reality is that if we only allow people to be judges who are willing to have no investments, we’ll have far more corruption than the common sense approach of letting judges have investments that their rulings do not pertain to.
It’s just common sense. Kman has to create an insane standard in order to convey the idea that there was an issue at all with someone owning an oil stock at some point in their life. As though people who do that are somehow immoral or untrustworthy, forever.
What a dishonest little hack.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/4/2011 @ 8:25 amSimilarly, often there’s an argument that we shouldn’t pay congressmen much, or take away their benefits (I’m not talking about the Pelosi type of waste fraud and abuse, but things like a salary and health care).
Invariably, this kind of idea benefits the super rich congresspersons like Kerry and Pelosi. It’s an ignorant bit of demagoguery that makes it harder for normal Americans to hold power. Less competition for the ruling class.
Murtha or Murkowski didn’t need to be paid a penny for their legislative work because they somehow kept falling into amazingly good fortune. In other words, corruption.
Let’s not let idiots or liars take away the ability for normal people to hold political or judicial power. I don’t want the only people who can afford to hold power to be independently wealthy.
I realize Kman isn’t thinking about this beyond his typical lazy ‘I must call Aaron a liar for a reasonable opinion’.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/4/2011 @ 8:30 amStep away from the bong, kmart.
JD (306f5d) — 2/4/2011 @ 8:42 amShort of putting your money into a safe inside your home, or just spending everything as fast as you make it, it’s impossible to hold zero investments. If you’ve got any savings at all, it would go into a bank….which is a kind of investment.
You’ve crafted an impossible standard to try to show the judge in the case did something wrong, when it’s clear to any reasonable observer that he did not.
Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/4/2011 @ 8:43 amBTW, Kman’s little “I know a lot of judges like this” is another example of Kman attempting to insert some kind of real world self glorification.
He likes to drop his personal experience as a lawyer, or knowing lots of judges, but these experiences are usually extremely unrealistic.
Kman: name one single judge who has no investments. You know so many, right? Or are you another example of the guy screaming liar at the drop of a hat actually being a liar?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/4/2011 @ 8:51 amKamrt is not making an argument. It is simply a dishonest output generator.
JD (d48c3b) — 2/4/2011 @ 8:58 amApparantly to Kman and some others the only way the judge could be fair is if he hated oil companies so much he would never deign to own a share of stock in one.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 2/4/2011 @ 9:37 amThis continues a long standing meme that only those who hate conservatives and capitalists are middle of the road.
Step away from the bong, kmart.
Bong? Hell, he’s way past the crack pipe at this point; I’d guess he’s on his sixth meth bender now.
Dmac (498ece) — 2/4/2011 @ 9:52 amIn what way? Link and details, please. Also, explain what vinson meant by ‘affirmatively’, and how your citation proves that Obamacare is constitutional.
My wild guess is that Washington’s law is not similar to Obamacare, and your quip is an absurd stretch.
BTW, your other claim didn’t reach the merits of Obamacare’s constitutionality if the issue wasn’t decided for lack of evidence. Try again.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/4/2011 @ 9:57 amDustin – “Tim” is that racist hilljack William Yelverton.
JD (fc6858) — 2/4/2011 @ 9:59 amYelverton is plagiarizing agin, BTW.
JD (fc6858) — 2/4/2011 @ 10:01 amThat is one of his telltales, JD. Thanks for the heads up. Just copying Media Matters or Raw Story, and ignoring reality.
It’s interesting to me that Media Matters and Raw Story haven’t simply given up. They’ve been proven so wrong, so many times. But thanks to blind fact-free partisanship, and Soros’s cash, I guess they have nothing to worry about.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/4/2011 @ 10:12 amYou can also smell him, Dustin. Rotting feces has a distinct odor.
JD (fc6858) — 2/4/2011 @ 10:20 amNotice that Tim neither cites Vinson’s statement nor cites what legislation Washington signed into law.
So the odds that this “Tim” actually did any research? Zero.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/4/2011 @ 11:06 amWas the decision stayed pending certiorari from the Supreme Court?
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 2/4/2011 @ 2:17 pmBy now, I’m really shocked he hasn’t been impeached…well, then again, Americans really aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed…not that this is entirely their fault…but still…
celebs4truth (5d839b) — 2/4/2011 @ 4:05 pmIf we impeach him, we need all the votes to finish the job. Putting the country through that must be for a complete result.
Reading about Obama dishing Britain’s nuke secrets, I’m sure we’re in for some horrible scandals coming from oversight hearings.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/4/2011 @ 4:32 pmAmerica had long abandoned the rule of law.
If the case of Barney Brown does not convince you that the rule of law is null and void, nothing will.
We have fifth columnists controlling public education and media networks.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 2/4/2011 @ 7:12 pmThat is scandalous.
There had better be a good reason, like Downing Street giving the White House outdated secrets specifically to give to the Russians. (And yes, the Russians would almost certainly consider the possibility that the secrets are outdated.)
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 2/5/2011 @ 6:29 pmMichael, there is nothing in the story to make one believe that Barney Brown is innocent. Nor is there an explanation for why he was tried again; surely there must have been a reason that seemed sufficient to the trial judge. (If his court-appointed lawyer didn’t even raise double jeopardy, then that ineffectiveness of counsel would be an additional reason to overturn his conviction!)
Milhouse (a67127) — 2/6/2011 @ 12:42 pmAha. I thought there must have been a reason; it is that the Supreme Court didn’t decide until 1975 that a juvenile court trial counted as jeopardy (Breed v Jones). At the time of Brown’s second trial there was no reason for anyone to suppose that there was anything wrong with it; they weren’t psychic. And I’ve seen nothing even claiming that his conviction in that trial was in any way incorrect. So I see no violation of the rule of law, or any reason to feel sorry for him.
Milhouse (a67127) — 2/6/2011 @ 12:59 pmBut the defense attorney should have brought it up. It was not like there was anything extra to lose if the motion was ultimately denied, while there was a lot to gain if the motion were ultimately granted.
It was ineffective counsel.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 2/8/2011 @ 7:04 pmnice researching skills with language enhancement you have
Gulf Jobs Vacancies (9720d7) — 3/28/2011 @ 4:46 am