Federal judge throws out Obama drilling rules

[Shadow]

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&where1=CHEYENNE, Wyo.&sty=h&form=msdate) — A judge on Friday threw out Obama administration rules that sought to slow down expedited environmental review of oil and gas drilling on federal land.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Freudenthal ruled in favor of a petroleum (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) industry group, the Western Energy Alliance, in its lawsuit against the federal government, including Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
The ruling reinstates Bush-era expedited oil and gas drilling under provisions called categorical exclusions on federal lands nationwide, Freudenthal said.
The government argued that oil and gas companies had no case because they didn't show how the new rules, implemented by the U.S. BureauofLandManagement (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) and U.S. Forest Service last year, had created delays and added to the cost of drilling.
Freudenthal rejected that argument.
"Western Energy has demonstrated through its members recognizable injury," she said. "Those injuries are supported by the administrative record."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44127172/ns/business-oil_and_energy/

[LuvRPgrl]

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&where1=CHEYENNE, Wyo.&sty=h&form=msdate) — A judge on Friday threw out Obama administration rules that sought to slow down expedited environmental review of oil and gas drilling on federal land.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Freudenthal ruled in favor of a petroleum (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) industry group, the Western Energy Alliance, in its lawsuit against the federal government, including Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
The ruling reinstates Bush-era expedited oil and gas drilling under provisions called categorical exclusions on federal lands nationwide, Freudenthal said.
The government argued that oil and gas companies had no case because they didn't show how the new rules, implemented by the U.S. BureauofLandManagement (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#) and U.S. Forest Service last year, had created delays and added to the cost of drilling.
Freudenthal rejected that argument.
"Western Energy has demonstrated through its members recognizable injury," she said. "Those injuries are supported by the administrative record."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44127172/ns/business-oil_and_energy/

Thats a win win for Obama

[Kathianne]

And guess who appointed the judge?

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/08/13/obamas-anti-jobs-agenda-takes-another-hit-federal-judge-tosses-obamas-oil-drilling-rules/


Obama’s Anti-Jobs Agenda Takes Another Hit: Federal Judge Tosses Obama’s Oil Drilling Rules

The past couple of weeks have been bad ones for President Obama. His approval rating is tanking, US credit was downgraded on his watch, ObamaCare took another shot on the chin, a certain governor joined the race to take his job away from him, and now a federal judge has kicked his oil drilling rules to the curb (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44127172/ns/business-oil_and_energy/#.TkbkHILAzK1).

...

Judge Nancy Freudenthal is an Obama appointee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_D._Freudenthal).



Some gnat was buzzing earlier about politics and the judiciary. How many presidents have been appalled at how their judicial appointments have turned out ruling? LOL! While most pay attention to SCOTUS appointments, it's the lower court appointments that are most frequent and influence so many of their decisions. Ask FDR.

[fj1200]

Some gnat was buzzing earlier about politics and the judiciary.

And he was right, just because this judge didn't whiff on the softball doesn't change that.

[Kathianne]

And he was right, just because this judge didn't whiff on the softball doesn't change that.

Again, I disagree. Souter being but one example.Kennedy being another much of the time. That's on the court that we're all familiar with. Same happens locally, once appointed or voted in, judges often 'come into their own.' Some is I sure, the side with the better argument or lawyer. Others though come down to the judges own opinions based on what they consider important to rendering justice.

Some are strict in interpretation, others go so far the other way as to consider precedents of other countries. Most fall somewhere in between. Looking at them though as D's or R's will work with some, but too many exceptions to prove a rule.

[fj1200]

Nobody said that they all fall in line. KRB said that the SC makes some political decisions, a couple of justices reversing themselves in response to courtpacking is fairly solid evidence as are his other examples. The HC decisions that have come down are all, but one iirc, have lined up for/against based on appointment. We can argue that's a different kind of politics than he posited earlier but it's political nonetheless. If it wasn't at all political then no one would argue over a slew of 5-4 decisions.

[Kathianne]

Nobody said that they all fall in line. KRB said that the SC makes some political decisions, a couple of justices reversing themselves in response to courtpacking is fairly solid evidence as are his other examples. The HC decisions that have come down are all, but one iirc, have lined up for/against based on appointment. We can argue that's a different kind of politics than he posited earlier but it's political nonetheless. If it wasn't at all political then no one would argue over a slew of 5-4 decisions.

I know what the argument is, it seems to me though that if it were 'political' as a basis, the outcome would rarely be a surprise. It often is. Why? Ideology. There's little doubt that those that take a strict interpretation view are going to often side with conservatives; same with those that believe in "Living Constitution" or flexibility are going to heavily trend towards a liberal slant as defined today. Some it works with across the board, but not those that tend to be deep thinkers. Alito is one:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/02/westboro-baptist-church-ruling-dissenting-justice-samuel-alito/

I personally disagreed with him and sided with the 8 others, but often when you read the cases, both he and Scalia add footnotes that will be used in the future. Doesn't matter if they are with the majority or minority, they want their thinking known.

There are actually many that have done the same, often being cited in other cases which of course is the point of SCOTUS cases. Also true at appellate level, though certainly not to the same degree.

[KartRacerBoy]

And guess who appointed the judge?

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/08/13/obamas-anti-jobs-agenda-takes-another-hit-federal-judge-tosses-obamas-oil-drilling-rules/



Some gnat was buzzing earlier about politics and the judiciary. How many presidents have been appalled at how their judicial appointments have turned out ruling? LOL! While most pay attention to SCOTUS appointments, it's the lower court appointments that are most frequent and influence so many of their decisions. Ask FDR.


Did I ever say that all judges adhere to the whims of the presidents who appointed them? I said justices and judges are political. They are affected in their decisions by political trends, etc. OT, but why is that so hard for you to accept? And does one case really prove your point? You must be a great statistician, too!

[Kathianne]

Did I ever say that all judges adhere to the whims of the presidents who appointed them? I said justices and judges are political. They are affected in their decisions by political trends, etc. OT, but why is that so hard for you to accept? And does one case really prove your point? You must be a great statistician, too!

Well that depends on what I'm researching. In any case, you have your opinion based upon I guess the 5-4 votes or HC rulings or what have you. I've given a few of my reasons for my opinion. Guess were not going to change our minds.

I'm getting tired of the same arguments, but at least you or your friend remained polite up this evening until the statistician remark which indicates it's time for me to say, 'Nice discussing with you.'

[KartRacerBoy]

Well that depends on what I'm researching. In any case, you have your opinion based upon I guess the 5-4 votes or HC rulings or what have you. I've given a few of my reasons for my opinion. Guess were not going to change our minds.

I'm getting tired of the same arguments, but at least you or your friend remained polite up this evening until the statistician remark which indicates it's time for me to say, 'Nice discussing with you.'

IIRC, I remained polite right up to the "little gnat" comment, Miss Holier Than Thou. Then I merely pointed out your problems with points, lines, trends, etc.