Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Administration 'Edict' Halting Deepwater Drilling Enjoined by Federal Court
Catholic Online ^ | 6/23/10 | Keith A. Fournier

Posted on 06/23/2010 4:50:50 AM PDT by tcg

Motions for Preliminary Injunctions are called "extraordinary relief" for good reason. They are rarely granted...They are based upon a pleading, filed prior to a full hearing, which claims that if the Court does not intervene, serious and irreparable injury and harm will result to the party who seeks the remedy.

When the Court does intervene, the party who sought the remedy from the Court has shown "a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits" as well as a "substantial threat of irreparable injury" without such a drastic judicial action by the Court This is a very well written, carefully researched and strongly worded judicial opinion written by United States District Judge Martin L.C. Feldman for the Eastern District of Louisiana. It reflects solid legal scholarship and a thorough revew of the record as presented by the parties, including the US Government.

Judge Feldman found that " the defendants (the Federal Government) have failed to cogently reflect the decision to issue a blanket, generic, indeed punitive, moratorium with the facts developed during the thirty day review. The Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of successfully showing that the Administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the moratorium."

He stated emphatically, "the Plaintiffs assert that they have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm as a result of the moratorium. The Court agrees." In the final sentence before the granting of the Injunction, Judge Feldman wrote ".the Court has found the plaintiffs would likely succeed in showing that the agency's decision was arbitrary and capricious."

He continued "An invalid Agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country."

(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: deepwaterdrilling; federalcourt; obama; oilspill; soweveheard
The introductory paragraph of this 22 page opinion by Judge Feldman presented the matter succinctly: "This case asks whether the federal government's imposition of a general moratorium on deepwater drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico was imposed contrary to law." Even a cursory reading of this strong opinion leaves little doubt; the Federal Court believes that it was. US Government is enjoined from halting offshore drilling.
1 posted on 06/23/2010 4:50:57 AM PDT by tcg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tcg

Too bad we can’t ask the court to halt the a$$ clown administration...


2 posted on 06/23/2010 5:04:35 AM PDT by Common Sense 101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcg

At least someone is on our side. This was like outlawing air craft after one Crash. If the spill results in C&T, I still would like to know the cause.
barbra ann


3 posted on 06/23/2010 5:05:53 AM PDT by barb-tex (REMEMBER NOVEMBER!!! Slim as it may be, it is our last hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcg

Careful! Obama might call this judge into his office for a dress-down! How dare a mere mortal challenge his greatness?


4 posted on 06/23/2010 5:06:13 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (Congress doesn't care a damn about "we the people")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcg

Our facist in chief probably went for the whole taco knowing full well the courts would only go along with a ban on ultra deep drilling but hoping for the best. Now his minion in chief Salazar will push for a ban below 5000 feet or so...still this effectively shuts down almost all exploratory and developmental GOM drilling.


5 posted on 06/23/2010 5:07:00 AM PDT by Mouton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcg

bttt...Reagan’s legacy lives on!!!!


6 posted on 06/23/2010 5:09:58 AM PDT by Guenevere (....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

Big deal... Sec. Salazar just reinstituted the ban over the judge’s ruling. This administration is out of control and must be stopped!


7 posted on 06/23/2010 5:15:03 AM PDT by Russ (Repeal the 17th amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Russ

I missed the part of it being reinstituted...where is that promolgated?

I predict this will be like the DC firearms case...we beat them over the head with a hammer, they come back...beat them over the head with a jack hammer, they come back. The only way to stop these people is to get them out of office.


8 posted on 06/23/2010 5:18:34 AM PDT by Mouton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Russ
I believe Zero is shocked that anybody - even a Federal Judge - would stand up against him and say 'NO'. This new ban is tantamout to a petulant child screaming "YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!"

From the sound of it, this new ban - while perhaps explaining the rationale somewhat further - still doesn't obey the law regarding the matters the Judge has already outlined in yesterday's ruling. Sounds like the plaintiffs will have to go back for a repeat ruling... with another smackdown.

9 posted on 06/23/2010 5:21:30 AM PDT by alancarp (Please don't tell Obama what comes after "trillion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mouton
"I missed the part of it being reinstituted...where is that promolgated?"

It's still gotta be issued, but here's the story: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2539781/posts

Meanwhile, I see another story claiming bias on the part of the judge (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2539979/posts). Sounds like the typical approach - attack the dissenters.

10 posted on 06/23/2010 5:25:20 AM PDT by alancarp (Please don't tell Obama what comes after "trillion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tcg
If the lawyers for the oil companies didn't go any further than the terms and conditions of their leases, I think they would win.

Everyone there gets pretty much the same deal ~ pay rent on the well site, pay royalties on the oil pumped or gas recovered, work through the term of the lease, etc.

There's piles of boilerplate behind each lease to take care of all the who struck johns and other contingencies that might deviate from statutory law.

Salazar probably got led into this sticky wicket because, alas, he has never been an oil company lawyer or leasing agent and doesn't know beans about it. Bet the EPA guys pointed to the "no dumping" rules too ~ as if they even understand them now.

NOTE: EPA "no dumping rules" ~ this stuff is on the internet now and easily found since they have been popped to the top of google.com by the users looking for them in recent weeks. The deal starts with a piece of federal regulation that allows shoreline communities, etc. to designate "no dumping zones" that would prohibit boats with "fixed toilet facilities" from just dumping a load in those areas. The idea was to keep the poop out of the shoreline.

Through time the rules based on the law changed in subtle ways. Now, for example, you can't even have a porta-potty on a boat because it's NOT FIXED. Since it's NOT FIXED it can't be easily regulated in a NO DUMPING ZONE like a FIXED one can.

We have gone from folks who are environmentally concerned making sure they have a suitible facility to relieve themselves to today's situation where you have to have a FIXED toilet on your boat or you will just need to go over the side ~ like in the days before buckets were invented!

At first I thought these rules were some overindustrious but otherwise indolent individuals idea of a joke, but then I found there are LAWSUITS that back them up.

It became quickly obvious that whatever I believed environmentally sound behavior to be, when it comes to shorelines that ain't it!

The Coast Guard inspects boats to ascertain compliance with the law and will seize vessels that are not in compliance.

Again, the original idea was just to keep the poop from areas where people swim, but EPA has turned it into a requirement to poop exactly where people swim.

11 posted on 06/23/2010 5:29:38 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson