Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“Judge holds Interior in contempt over drilling ban”

From The Hill:

A Louisiana federal judge on Wednesday held the Interior Department in contempt for re-imposing a deepwater oil-drilling ban last year after the judge had struck down an earlier version of the moratorium.

The contempt finding provides political ammunition for Republicans and pro-drilling Democrats who say Interior is blocking offshore development. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) quickly called the order a “sharp rebuke of the Interior Department for continuing to place politics before all else following the BP spill.”

Judge Martin Feldman’s ruling — which is stuffed with harsh words for Interior — orders the department to pay attorneys’ fees in the case against last year’s drilling ban brought by several offshore oil services companies.

Feldman is the judge who last June struck down Interior’s initial drilling ban, issued in the wake of the BP oil spill. Interior issued a new version of the deepwater ban in July that it eventually lifted in October, but permitting for deepwater projects has not yet resumed.

Feldman’s order Wednesday takes Interior to task for the way it went about issuing a new, but very similar, version of the ban after he granted an injunction against the first one.Wait. So is Feldman saying the administration doesn’t really cotton to legal injunctions? Because Dick Durbin had led me to believe otherwise…

“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition 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 of this Court’s preliminary injunction Order,” Fedman wrote in Wednesday’s ruling. Feldman is with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of Louisiana.

The Interior Department declined to comment on the new ruling.

And why would they?

Best just to ignore it entirely.

After all, laws aren’t meant to constrain the ruling class — particularly when it’s acting “progressively”; because who in their right mind would be against progress?

No, laws are there to make sure the riff-raff buy what they’re told to buy. It’s in the Constitution.

— And if it isn’t, that’s because 1) it’s old and stupid and non-binding, or 2) the wrong kinds of judges are “interpreting” the stupid thing.

26 Replies to ““Judge holds Interior in contempt over drilling ban””

  1. Russ says:

    I look back at the Bush years, and I can’t really picture them ignoring a decision like this. Indeed, I think Bush went a bit overboard in kowtowing to judicial rulings, particularly in national security matters, sometimes to our national detriment.

    By way of contrast, this is exactly what I would expect out of the current administration: ignore rulings that go against what they want. Because, shut up.

    I wish I could remember who said it in response to the Florida vs. Obamacare ruling, but the line was something like: “Forget wanting to see Obama’s birth certificate – I want to see his law school diploma.”

  2. Russ says:

    [And for the record… I wrote the above comment before I read the immediately previous PW post.]

  3. happyfeet says:

    Judge Martin Feldman’s ruling — which is stuffed with harsh words for Interior — orders the department to pay attorneys’ fees in the case

    so not only does bumblefuck get to destroy jobs and force failshit America to import even more oils – he gets to squander more monies on top of that?

    He’s fucking good.

  4. Joe says:

    Judges should only be respected and followed only when they are the proper sort of judges who give the proper sort of opinions. That is how it works for the left.

  5. dicentra says:

    Look. If we drill here, drill now, then fuel prices won’t skyrocket, as Barack said they would, and then he’d have all that egg on his face.

    Surely that’s more important than some dumb ruling.

  6. sdferr says:

    Seems like yer blockquotes want jiggering.

  7. cranky-d says:

    Jiggering?

    Racist.

  8. Matt says:

    The Left is losing. Alot. Perhaps they overestimated their “mandate” from 06 and 08. Overreaching appears to be a big problem for the libs.

    Plus, if we could drill, we wouldn’t have to give a shit about Egypt- the left wants us to stop spreading hegemony/democracy – well let us drill and we’ll stop.

  9. sdferr says:

    Contempt is a characteristic of progressivism. It can’t live without being contemptuous. So asking a progressive to be less contemptuous is tantamount to asking a progressive to die. Haters.

  10. Pablo says:

    Can anyone recall the last time an administration was held in contempt?

    I love me some Southern judges!

  11. sdferr says:

    As we see the Obama administration doubling down on its defiance and willful misreading (of itself, of the polity, of the Constitution), will police powers eventually be confronted by a terrible choice? Either follow formulaically lawful but unconstitutional orders or adhere to the Constitutional oaths they’ve taken?

  12. Ernst Schreiber says:

    The Democrat Party has become an anti-American conspiracy.

  13. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Can anyone recall the last time an administration was held in contempt?

    Interior has been in contempt of court since the Clinton administration. Something to do with mismanagement of funds owed by the BIA to reservation indijinus Meracuns.

  14. JHoward says:

    Truths of that magnitude tend to break the Internets, Ernst. Nice call.

  15. Squid says:

    I think the Bureau of Medical Affairs should be modeled after the BIA. Can you imagine Auntie Ruth’s reaction to finding out the pencil-pushers lost her medical records, and it’ll be 14 years before they get around to looking for them?

  16. newrouter says:

    This lens of a new feudalism gives me a new understanding of what is going on with Obama’s waivers on health care for all his bestest baronial buddies and Obama’s very special waiver for very, very powerful baron GE as regards global warming rules.

    Reason puts the feudal system (personal favor-banking and influence peddling) as the opposite of a “republican” system, a system of laws not barons, where everyone stands equal under the law — everyone subject to the punitive compulsions of law and no afforded special monarchial dispensation from the law.

    In that context, I’m wondering at what point a system of waivers becomes actually unconstitutional — because anyone not granted a waiver is being burdened by a restrictive and possibly punitive law that others aren’t. Isn’t he?

    link

  17. Stephanie says:

    In that context, I’m wondering at what point a system of waivers becomes actually unconstitutional — because anyone not granted a waiver is being burdened by a restrictive and possibly punitive law that others aren’t. Isn’t he?

    I’d say now and to quote Gibbs: “‘Now’ started yesterday.”

    I’m looking forward to the lawsuits over the waivers. If anyone dares to file one; because, the opposition to, and opposite of, the waivers would be an IRSEPAEEOC proctological exam. Carrot, stick fist. No lubrication offered.

    Other than a few speaking out :cough: Sarah :cough:, most republicans and free market capitalists are not willing to risk the whack a mole game.

    Tis a sad state of affairs.

  18. BuddyPC says:

    And why would they?

    Best just to ignore it entirely.

    The silver lining here is that all they are doing is setting precedents.
    As in, “Yeah? You and whose army, Mr. Interior/HHS Regulator?”

    What is it that that shoveling birthday guy always says, exclamated?

  19. Stephanie says:

    It would be interesting to see what happened if Shell or Occidental or whatever the oil companies are called these days (they merge and change so quickly here!) were to apply directly to the judge for a drilling permit inder guise of injuctive relief or whatever the legalese is for it.

    Be damn funny if he granted it.

  20. JD says:

    Jere little PR whore. You have a little Bumblefuck love spunk dribbling down your chin. Here is a handkerchief. There. That is better.

  21. JD says:

    Here little NPR whore.

  22. […] “Judge holds Interior in contempt over drilling ban” – protein wisdom […]

  23. […] FIAF – (and Obama is f-ing up all over) Obama and his administration are above the law. […]

  24. […] round. There are lots of people working for EPA who are genuinely (if ignorantly) concerned about environmental protection, but like any other regulatory agency EPA is at root a bureaucracy, and the goal of any bureaucracy […]

  25. SDN says:

    It would be even more amusing if various states would take this ruling and say that any EPA agents attempting to enforce the moratorium are operating illegally under color of law and subject to being arrested on the spot.

  26. SDN says:

    Same prescription for any bureaucrats trying to continue implementing Obamacare.

Comments are closed.