READER COMMENTS ON
"U.S. Judge Rules Obama Admin Violated Law in CA Shale Oil Land Leases; Finds BLM Failed to Consider Environmental Effects of Fracking"
(8 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 4/10/2013 @ 6:56 pm PT...
This is getting to be rather surreal with the Pres and the courts. Isn't this the fourth battle where he has been smacked down by the courts and "lost" his case while seemingly getting what he wants?
There was the story just out about emergency contraception where the courts hammered his illogical arguments in "forcing" him to change his policy… There was the case over the DOMA where he insisted his hands were tied and he had to enforce the law until a court orders him to stop, and they ridiculed his argument as petty (I guess there hasn't actually been a ruling on that one yet)……There was the Health Care bill, where even John Roberts had to come to his rescue and dress down his preposterous reasoning, and say "no, it's a tax, you idiot, and yes, you can levy such a tax and carry out the act you buffoon."
I think he is out to prove you really can win the war after losing every battle. He could turn out to be the shrewdest politician to ever walk the earth, or maybe the Chauncey Gardiner of the White House. Maybe we should start referring to him as "Chance."
Did anyone else get the idea the John Roberts kind of flinched on that Health Care Act ruling? Maybe he got so despicably irritated by the horrible arguments that Obama's team submitted, that he actually lost his cool and made his ruling in a fit of disgust to align the logic before he realized what hit him.
You can't fault success ….. can you?
Is there a possibility that all those unfortunate Pakistani peasants meeting their fate at the end of a drone bomb after having nothing to do with terrorism are really honest-to-good martyrs that will be central to the decision by the Supreme Court to squash the drone program for good?
Hell, maybe the same dynamic is at work in Palestine right now. We'll see. But I don't remember a time since I've been paying attention to politics when it was so pervasive that the courts were ridiculing ineffective arguments (and rightfully so) by a presidential team in announcing their judgments. It's doubly strange that the president's political alliance has come out ahead despite the feeble lawyering.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 4/10/2013 @ 7:26 pm PT...
By the way, I'm somewhat disappointed by the reporting of this article. The story implies that the oil leases threaten coastal habitat, and there is a picture showing a rocky shore and breaking waves, and the picture caption refers to Monterey, CA.
Although the tracts are in Monterey County, they are actually on the order of 100 miles away from the city of Monterey. The tracts are about 20 miles away from the coast, on an eastern flank of the Gabilan range, and in "Oil Country" where there has already been extensive oil production. Also, the lands are outside the purview of the California Coastal Commission.
Which isn't to say I would want to see drilling there, or support the fracking, but it is disheartening to see a headline about a murdered dog with a photo of a cute puppy, only to find out it is a story about a euthanized 12-yr old cancerous dog. They do that type of reporting at Raw Story. And I'm not trying to say that San Ardo is the equivalent of a tumorous dog on the scale of scenic value, just that it doesn't rise to the level of a totally adorable puppy.
Here is a map of the leases:
Here is a story that gives a bit more accurate picture of the issue than the one that Bradblog relied on:
It actually has some interesting info, including this tidbit:
"BLM geologists predict an operator would be able to extract oil or gas from the dense Monterey Shale Formation only through fracking…."
Is that the gubb'n'mint arguing with itself again?
Note this tidbit from the article Bradblog quotes:
"BLM maintained the leases would not necessarily involve fracking…."
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 4/11/2013 @ 4:14 am PT...
Good news. Thanks for supplying details of events that keep us on our toes Brad.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 4/11/2013 @ 8:26 am PT...
He has a long list. Yet! I do not understand his lack of promotion.
I am an I and voted Nixon. Ford, Reagan twice because I felt they were the most qualified.
Since 1990, I have had problem with Republicans. They controlled Congress and gave us three horrid bills that Clinton signed. Repeal of Glass Steagall let wealthy investment houses get a a monopoly on our banking system. Today. 10 “too big to fail” control 80% of all bank deposits.
Commodities Modernization allowed banks to get into gambling where investors have no stake.
Free Trade Act with China and during the Bush Administration 3,700,000 of our good jobs went to just China. Of Course. Nafta sent 800,000 to Mexico. The 8 of Bush II increased spending by 90%, Debt by 112%, deficit to 1400B from a surplus, two unneeded wars. And huge tax cut for the rich.
Obama increased the debt with 800B Stimulus and Payroll Tax Cut.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 4/11/2013 @ 11:37 am PT...
Dexter @ 2:
Excellent comment. Thanks!
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 4/12/2013 @ 11:56 am PT...
Brad @ 5, you're welcome, although I guess that means you didn't find Dexter @ 1 nearly so excellent.
But I think I've got something here. For example, here is another case where Obama is overzealously enforcing laws that his political alliance would seemingly not support, to the point that it seems any day now, the courts will be forced to slap him down in another great "loss," on invasion of privacy and marijuana enforcement:
Sources tell me he shopped around for a US attorney in California that would sign on to shutting down dispensaries in the west. Evidently an important consideration in his selection. You know, not just selective enforcement to temper the growing marijuana industry, but dramatically attempting to shut it down, more harshly than his religio-conservative predecessor.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 4/14/2013 @ 6:12 am PT...
I've been wondering if GMO opponents have over-looked this angle. I'm pretty sure the law regarding environmental impact statements is broad and applies to virtually all government agencies. If so, what kind of statement was filed (and accepted by the government) when GMOs first appeared on the government's regulatory radar? It might be worth some digging on this . . . .
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 4/17/2013 @ 6:11 am PT...
Shutting down two dumb wars
Proposed Universal Pre-Kindergarten
Proposed a jobs program to create/save 4 million jobs
Expanded SCHIP to cover 11 million children
Affordable Care Ace which makes every American who earns less 135% of
the Poverty level eligible for Medicaid
Nearly doubled funding for Pell Grants and increased the number receiving Pell grants by 67%
Overhauled the Food Safety Program
Advanced women's rights in the work place
Ended Don't Ask Don't Tell in the military
Passed the Hate Crimes bill
Appointed two women to the Supreme Court
Fixed the Pre-Existing condition in health care
Invested in Clean Energy
Overhauled the credit card industry
Signed Dodd-Frank an effort to regulate the runaway financial Gambling Industry
Established the Consumer Protection Bureau
Proposed Tier 3 Vehicle emission standards
Just a few to remind the people “he is trying to do good”