General Discussion

merrily

(45,251 posts)

37. First, I may be a cynic, but I don't

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:18 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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Fucking Horrible. Fucking Typical. Nothing to see here. [View all] 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