Govt. = contempt of court for oil drilling ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tempest

Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
10,610
Location
Las Vegas NV
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03...udge-rules.html

Quote:
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.


It will be interesting to see what happens from here.
 
Gee a district court for TX, LA, and MS has a pro-drilling stance. Who knew?

That drilling ban could have easily have prevented a blowout and noone is a hero for stopping something that doesn't happen. Wait, isn't this the excuse for the Patriot Act's continued existence?
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Gee a district court for TX, LA, and MS has a pro-drilling stance. Who knew?

That drilling ban could have easily have prevented a blowout and noone is a hero for stopping something that doesn't happen. Wait, isn't this the excuse for the Patriot Act's continued existence?

Here's an idea, why doesn't the government just ban motor vehicles? After all, it's guaranteed to prevent negative consequences and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That has a far more substantive basis than your, and the government's, theory that something might have been prevented...
 
The trouble is going to start when the federal goverment steps on and cripples the economies of the states. I live in Florida, by the beach, that oil spill was WAY overblown. Enviromentalists dream flag waving. Our beaches have never been cleaner and BP did a excellent job of cleaning it up, without the Goverments help. Dont believe all you read. I was over to the west coast too.
 
Well, what do you expect? After all, the 3 branches of government as of last week are the presidency, the senate, and the house of representatives...
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Well, what do you expect? After all, the 3 branches of government as of last week are the presidency, the senate, and the house of representatives...

"Judiciary? We don' need no stinkin' Judiciary!"
 
Remember when everyone was complaining about "activist judges"? Notice it's stopped?
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Well, what do you expect? After all, the 3 branches of government as of last week are the presidency, the senate, and the house of representatives...
I sub mit that a fourth branch of government exists a well armed citizenry. The other 3 branches are REALLY frightened of this. John--Las Vegas.
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Remember when everyone was complaining about "activist judges"? Notice it's stopped?

An "activist judge" is one who creates new laws, or interpretations, where there was no such law or precedent. A judge has NO authority to create law, whatsoever.

A judge who hoists the government on its own petard for flaunting a legally binding order, an order in full accordance with the law, is anything but "activist".

I think some have a distinct inability to comprehend the authorities, responsibilities and limitations which are clearly delineated in this nation's founding articles. Or, maybe it's just a deliberate, conscious desire to ignore them? Hmmm...
 
Originally Posted By: rshunter

I think some have a distinct inability to comprehend the authorities, responsibilities and limitations which are clearly delineated in this nation's founding articles. Or, maybe it's just a deliberate, conscious desire to ignore them? Hmmm...


There is no constitutional requirement that there be any district courts at all.
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
There is no constitutional requirement that there be any district courts at all.

Care to tell us how that, in any way, grants judges the privilege to assume the authority bestowed solely upon the legislative branch to make laws? A note as to how it also grants the executive branch the right to ignore a legal and binding judicial order would also be most informative and welcome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top