Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:37 AM Jun 2016

Fucking Horrible. Fucking Typical. Nothing to see here.



Obama-appointed judge strikes down federal fracking rule


The decision is a major loss for the administration, which worked for years to update its oil and natural gas drilling regulations to account for dramatic increases and innovations in fracking.

Judge Scott Skavdahl of the District Court of Wyoming agreed with the arguments of industry groups and a handful of western states that said Congress has expressly forbidden Interior from getting into fracking with a 2005 law, with few exceptions.

“Congress has not delegated to the Department of Interior the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing,” Skavdahl wrote in his opinion published late Tuesday. “The [Bureau of Land Management’s] effort to do so through the Fracking Rule is in excess of its statutory authority and contrary to law.”

Interior had countered with the argument it has broad authority over oil and natural gas development on federal and American-Indian land — the only places where the rule would be enforced. But Skavdahl, who was nominated in 2011 by Obama, disagreed.

<snip>

read:http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/284388-judge-strikes-down-federal-fracking-rule
40 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fucking Horrible. Fucking Typical. Nothing to see here. (Original Post) cali Jun 2016 OP
In case you don't get it, fracking is very lightly regulated cali Jun 2016 #1
Good point. Bad law signed by George W. Bush. Not a judge being bad. NT Eric J in MN Jun 2016 #2
actually, it's a judge exercising bad judgment as well. It is NOT either/or cali Jun 2016 #3
Are you basing that claim against the judge on the text and legislative history of the statute? merrily Jun 2016 #5
I know that other judges in other cases have interpreted the 2005 Energy legislation cali Jun 2016 #6
On this same point? Nothing in the OP story suggests the judge ignored precedent. merrily Jun 2016 #8
I don't know about this exact point. And it's true that most successful cali Jun 2016 #9
There have been tons of cases where federal agencies prevail, but they may have nothing to do with merrily Jun 2016 #13
The Judge is ruling in accordance with the 2005 law but cali Jun 2016 #14
Big no. The only regulatory authority admin. agencies have is what Congress gives them by statute. merrily Jun 2016 #15
I stand corrected then. The Halliburton/Cheney Loophole really does protect cali Jun 2016 #19
I am not clear what you mean by "Obama lawyers." merrily Jun 2016 #22
Nice summary, and absolutely correct. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #28
Thank you. merrily Jun 2016 #35
Whoa, that's backwards jberryhill Jun 2016 #38
Better watch it with remarks like that RoccoR5955 Jun 2016 #20
That law passed 74-26 in the Senate and Barack Obama voted for it. Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #21
So that's what Cheney was up to in his secret Energy Task Force bucolic_frolic Jun 2016 #7
Dr. Phil: People with nothing to hide, hide nothing. merrily Jun 2016 #11
If Congress actually did expressly forbid regulation by the agency, as the lawsuit claimed, the merrily Jun 2016 #4
Fracking is unfortunately tied to renewables. joshcryer Jun 2016 #10
Maybe, but that is not really relevant to whether the judge's reading of the statute is correct. merrily Jun 2016 #12
The judge is correct. joshcryer Jun 2016 #16
On the judge, please see Reply 4 and my other posts upthread. merrily Jun 2016 #18
That makes no sense fasttense Jun 2016 #17
I think josh may have been making "a funny." merrily Jun 2016 #23
When Denton Texas passes it's first local ordinance against fracking, Loki Jun 2016 #24
That's one way to get around a local ordinance and let folks know who is really in charge Person 2713 Jun 2016 #25
Way the system works 1939 Jun 2016 #27
. Did you read the link in the post I was replying to ? If that is how you like the system to work Person 2713 Jun 2016 #31
I read the link 1939 Jun 2016 #39
Colorado has the strongest regulations in the nation mountain grammy Jun 2016 #26
Congress could have repealed the Cheney loophole with no risk of veto at any time merrily Jun 2016 #30
Yes, you're correct, and they should have.. mountain grammy Jun 2016 #33
Except...would Pres. Obama have vetoed repeal of a bill for which Senator Obama had voted? merrily Jun 2016 #34
Yeah, that would've been a dilemma. mountain grammy Jun 2016 #36
First, I may be a cynic, but I don't merrily Jun 2016 #37
Why say "Obama-appointed judge", you're giving the impression that the reason Obama... George II Jun 2016 #29
In the context of this case, your comment makes no sense at all. merrily Jun 2016 #32
Because that's what the article said. Your post is, forgive me, paranoid cali Jun 2016 #40
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
1. In case you don't get it, fracking is very lightly regulated
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:40 AM
Jun 2016

in large part because of the Cheney Loophole in the Energy Act of 2005.

We are so fucked and most are so clueless. Yeah, that includes a fuck of a lot of people right here on DU.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
5. Are you basing that claim against the judge on the text and legislative history of the statute?
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:10 AM
Jun 2016

The article you posted says the judge agreed that the statute contains an express prohibition against regulation. That's a strong argument for the judge to decide exactly as he did. If he is wrong about something that black and white, we will find out when the agency appeals.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
6. I know that other judges in other cases have interpreted the 2005 Energy legislation
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:13 AM
Jun 2016

differently.

This is all about the so-called "Cheney Loophole" within that legislative package.

The Obama legal team obviously thought this would pass muster.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
8. On this same point? Nothing in the OP story suggests the judge ignored precedent.
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:32 AM
Jun 2016

I don't know which Obama legal team would have looked at this. The agency likely has its own lawyers, but, heaven knows, agencies are not always right, even though courts give them great deference.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
9. I don't know about this exact point. And it's true that most successful
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:40 AM
Jun 2016

regulation has been done on the state level due to the 2005 legislation, but as I recall there have been a few fed cases where federal agencies have prevailed. I'll have to research it.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
13. There have been tons of cases where federal agencies prevail, but they may have nothing to do with
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:47 AM
Jun 2016

this decision. If the particular statute in question in this case expressly forbids DOI regulation of fracking, the judge is right. If it doesn't, the judge is wrong.

Four states are the plaintiffs in this case. That shouldn't affect the outcome, but it is unusual.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
14. The Judge is ruling in accordance with the 2005 law but
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:53 AM
Jun 2016

couldn't he, for example, find that Congress overreached and usurped DOI's regulatory authority?

merrily

(45,251 posts)
15. Big no. The only regulatory authority admin. agencies have is what Congress gives them by statute.
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:57 AM
Jun 2016

It all depends on the wording and legislative history of the statute.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
19. I stand corrected then. The Halliburton/Cheney Loophole really does protect
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 08:04 AM
Jun 2016

frackers from meaningful regulation. The Obama lawyers didn't think so, but the judge did. Wonder if they'll appeal.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
22. I am not clear what you mean by "Obama lawyers."
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 08:18 AM
Jun 2016

do you mean the Office of the Solicitor General?

In any event, if you are correct about the statute, the agency and whoever decided to defend this case should be taken to the woodshed for wasting taxpayer money on the rulemaking and the defense of this case.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
38. Whoa, that's backwards
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:51 PM
Jun 2016

Congress can delegate as much or as little authority as they like to administrative agencies, but under NO circumstances would Congress be found to have over-reached an administrative agency on matters which were committed to that agency by Congress in the first place.

 

RoccoR5955

(12,471 posts)
20. Better watch it with remarks like that
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 08:10 AM
Jun 2016

they could get banned for talking badly about a Democratic official.
Just sayin'

bucolic_frolic

(43,641 posts)
7. So that's what Cheney was up to in his secret Energy Task Force
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:24 AM
Jun 2016

that fought so hard to keep the meetings private

merrily

(45,251 posts)
11. Dr. Phil: People with nothing to hide, hide nothing.
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:43 AM
Jun 2016

Viscerally, I dislike the man. Nonetheless, he has a way of putting things that both nails it and sticks in my head.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
4. If Congress actually did expressly forbid regulation by the agency, as the lawsuit claimed, the
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:58 AM
Jun 2016

judge is 100% correct and should be cheered.

Government has three branches, only one of which has constitutional power to legislate. A regulatory agency's overstepping its statutory authority seems like a good thing--but only when you agree with what the agency is up to at the moment. Unfortunately, law works by precedent. A wrong decision by the judge on this case would apply to Trump's agency, not only Obama's.

The real problem is that we cannot count on Congress--or indeed any branch of the federal government--to do what is best for the 90%, as opposed to what is best for big business or for the very wealthy. That will remain so as long as there are $$$ in politics and revolving doors, perqs, etc. for lawmakers.

joshcryer

(62,287 posts)
10. Fracking is unfortunately tied to renewables.
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:42 AM
Jun 2016

You don't get wind without fracked natural gas for peaking power.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
12. Maybe, but that is not really relevant to whether the judge's reading of the statute is correct.
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:45 AM
Jun 2016

I don't understand how absence of fracking makes wind go away, but that's not relevant to this case, either.

joshcryer

(62,287 posts)
16. The judge is correct.
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:57 AM
Jun 2016

I'm "merrily" explaining why fracking is used. It is for "environmental reasons." Particularly wind. Fracking is literally the worst way to go.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
18. On the judge, please see Reply 4 and my other posts upthread.
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 08:03 AM
Jun 2016

As far as your explanations of fracking, they are not especially relevant to the case that is the topic of this thread.

Hmm. That sounds familiar. Someone may have already posted that.

 

fasttense

(17,301 posts)
17. That makes no sense
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 08:00 AM
Jun 2016

The wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining if we don't frack?

You don't need another carbon emitting fuel to move to renewables. Germany has done it and generates over 70% of their energy from renewables without fracking. Why can't we?

Loki

(3,825 posts)
24. When Denton Texas passes it's first local ordinance against fracking,
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 08:33 AM
Jun 2016

this is what happened. Seems the oil and gas industry have the power and influence to overrule the people, and they aren't giving it up any time soon. It's time to break the oil, gas, and gun lobbies and never put the pieces back together again. Please take note that this was in Texas and it was signed by the repuke governor.

New Texas Law Makes Local Fracking Bans Illegal


WADE GOODWYN
Legislation was signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott after the city of Denton voted to restrict fracking. Denton officials say oil companies should not wield more power than citizens.

http://www.npr.org/2015/05/20/408156948/new-texas-law-makes-local-fracking-bans-illegal

1939

(1,683 posts)
27. Way the system works
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:07 AM
Jun 2016

State laws over rule local laws and federal laws over rule state laws. What would you want to change about the system?

Person 2713

(3,263 posts)
31. . Did you read the link in the post I was replying to ? If that is how you like the system to work
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:24 AM
Jun 2016

so be it for you!


1939

(1,683 posts)
39. I read the link
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:15 PM
Jun 2016

The point I was trying to make with you is that under our system (right or wrong/good or bad), feds over rule states and states over rule their political subdivisions. If Denton had passed a law outlawing LGBT persons, I would think you would want a state or federal law to overturn the Denton law.

Would you want any municipal ordinances to over rule higher law?

mountain grammy

(26,695 posts)
26. Colorado has the strongest regulations in the nation
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:00 AM
Jun 2016

according to the thousands of commercials from Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development, or CRED. That would be CRUD in my mind, that allows for communities to "talk to oil and gas companies" before they frack a well in your kid's playground. There are no regulations on fracking, thanks to Bush/Cheney, the gifts that keep on giving.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
30. Congress could have repealed the Cheney loophole with no risk of veto at any time
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:23 AM
Jun 2016

between January 2009 and January 2011--except that Senator Obama had voted for it.

mountain grammy

(26,695 posts)
33. Yes, you're correct, and they should have..
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:36 AM
Jun 2016

but, sadly, the missed opportunities of that time will always haunt us, and Obama's legacy.

mountain grammy

(26,695 posts)
36. Yeah, that would've been a dilemma.
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:42 AM
Jun 2016

My feeling is he wouldn't have vetoed a Democratic led repeal even though he did vote for the original bill, but we'll never know.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
37. First, I may be a cynic, but I don't
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:18 AM
Jun 2016

think Democrats would have led a fight to repeal if the fight would have embarrassed the head of their Party. The priorities of people in Congress, regardless of party, seem to me to be (1) my own re-election; (2) possibly jobs for my family and friends; and (3) my Party (which plays back into the first two items).

Leading a fight to repeal something lobbyists wanted and the head of the Party had voted for would have messed up all three priorities.

No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up.

Lily Tomlin

(Every time the late Jackpine Radical saw me post something about cynicism, he would reply to me with that quote. Since he passed, I use the quote myself.)

Second, Nye Bevan posted above that the bill had passed the Senate 74-26. So, the chances of a repeal attempt succeeding were slim.

I guess my point is, we can't blame Republicans, and only Republicans.



George II

(67,782 posts)
29. Why say "Obama-appointed judge", you're giving the impression that the reason Obama...
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:23 AM
Jun 2016

....appointed the judge was to strike down the rule.

I don't know much about this particular judge, but one would think that he was appointed for his overall background, experience, and position on all issues that could come before him.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
32. In the context of this case, your comment makes no sense at all.
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:27 AM
Jun 2016

I've not heard it made before in connection with any case.

The Obama administration is the one that made the rules the Obama-appointed judge struck down. Why would Obama appoint one group to make a rule and appoint a judge to strike it down?

Who appointed a judge is often very relevant to a story about a case, though not this time. It sure is relevant on DU when a Bush appointed judge makes a decision DU doesn't appreciate.

Double standards help no one.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
40. Because that's what the article said. Your post is, forgive me, paranoid
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:27 PM
Jun 2016

I was in no way thinking or inferring that Obama appointed him to strike this down. I support what Obama tried to do here.

Kick in to the DU tip jar?

This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.

As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.

Tell me more...

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Fucking Horrible. Fuckin...