|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Aug 18, 2011 12:53:42 GMT -5
I can't say whether or not I agree with the judge's opinion, as I haven't read the argumentation from both sides and the decision itself is pretty chock-full of legalese, but the judge cannot base her opinion on what is best for the environment, she has to base her opinion on what the law is. (Also, it is a pretty heavy accusation to suggest that she has been taking bribes.) From what I can understand, the Obama administration adopted sweeping new regulations regarding energy drilling, and United States law required them to have a period for public comment. The Obama administration did not do this, so therefore these new regulations were held to be invalid. The blame would seem to rest with the Obama administration for not following the law. And people say I blindly follow the law... right. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 18, 2011 13:05:19 GMT -5
I am totally an environmentalist and am fully in favor of tough energy drilling regulations, but judges do have to blindly follow the law. That's their job. If the judge said "forget the law, I'm going to do what I think is best for the environment" then that is what you would call an "activist judge." And if a judge is allowed to forget about the law when it helps the environment, a conservative Republican judge can just "forget" about all the environmental laws already in place. You can't have it one way.
According to the ruling, the judge didn't even need to address the Western Energy Alliance's claims that it was eligible to drill on that land. The Obama administration adopted new regulations without public comment, which is against the law.
|
|
