SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
According to reporting at Common Dreams:
Environmental advocates cheered a federal judge's ruling Thursday that voided oil and gas leases on roughly one million acres of public lands and rejected a Trump administration policy that accelerated extraction of the fossil fuels.
"The judge confirmed that it's illegal to silence the public to expand fossil-fuel extraction," said Taylor McKinnon, a senior campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity.
The lawsuit centered on a 2018 memoradum, "No. 2018-034," issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency of the Interior Department. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt is a former oil and gas lobbyist.
Also key was that the areas in question are habitat for the greater sage grouse, whose numbers are in decline.
[...]Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush said BLM was "arbitrary and capricious" in issuing the new policy, and said the agency clearly sought to mute public input.
The "BLM jettisoned prior processes, practices, and norms in favor of changes that emphasized economic maximization—to the detriment, if not outright exclusion, of pre-decisional opportunities for the public to contribute to the decision-making process affecting the management of public lands," he wrote.
"The agency's administrative record," Bush continued, "reveals no analysis that would explain or justify the transition" from the Obama-era policy to the new one "and the resulting curtailment of the public's involvement in oil and gas leasing decisions on public land."
The administration's shift appears to be "a mechanism for unharnessing prior constraints upon oil and gas leasing by specifically reducing or eliminating public involvement in the oil and gas leasing process because such public involvement hindered the oil and gas production industry," he added.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2020, @06:27PM (28 children)
An analysis that would explain or justify the transition from the Obama-era policy to the new one, using Obama's own words: Elections have consequences.
There is no "detriment, if not outright exclusion, of pre-decisional opportunities for the public to contribute to the decision-making process affecting the management of public lands". The public chose "changes that emphasized economic maximization". We voted for it in 2016.
You could even say that the judge has imposed a "curtailment of the public's involvement in oil and gas leasing decisions on public land" by undoing the actions of our elected government. Outside of Idaho, none of us voted for that judge. Some random judge in Idaho does not legitimately have any right to impose his agenda on the whole USA.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 04 2020, @06:34PM (14 children)
They don't allow you to violate the law, though. Which is what the administration did when they silenced the legally required public comment and review process.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2020, @06:43PM (3 children)
Trump says he's above the law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2020, @09:02PM (2 children)
All psychopaths say that. Until they commit suicide in jail.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2020, @09:16PM (1 child)
Epstein didn't kill himself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2020, @04:24PM
lol this nutball conspiracy again
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2020, @06:46PM (9 children)
How many such products of politicking from the bench, have already been thrown out by the upper courts, hmm?
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 04 2020, @06:55PM (4 children)
Enforcing laws that Trump doesn't happen to like is not activism.
Maybe if he would bother to learn how government works he could do something to change those laws.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2020, @09:26PM (3 children)
Fair enough.
Though selectively not enforcing laws one don't like is activism. Such as immigration law in"sanctuary cities".
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 04 2020, @10:29PM (2 children)
Cities don't enforce federal laws.
I wish you guys would learn how our government works before opining about it.
(Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Thursday March 05 2020, @03:40AM (1 child)
Cities in recent years have actively prevented the enforcement of federal laws. That IS illegal, and people not in politically protected groups often end up in Club Fed for interfering with U. S. government law enforcement.
Bank robbers, rapists, and murderers have been assisted in escaping ICE officials by a Boston-area judge because the law-breakers were illegal aliens. This is not acceptable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2020, @12:05AM
I accept it. What's your problem? Are you a racist?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 04 2020, @07:45PM (3 children)
I've noticed an interesting pattern here: Judges that say "Yes, the president has to follow the law as written, and if you don't like it you have to get Congress to change the law" are being declared "activists" and presumably aren't supposed to be listened to. Meanwhile, judges that say "The president and his appointees can ignore the law whenever they don't like it" aren't getting the same treatment, despite the fact that that is an extremely radical position that has no precedent at all.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday March 04 2020, @08:31PM (2 children)
It occurred to me today that our two party system, as practiced recently with near total solidarity, has made impeachment and many other of the checks and balances basically irrelevant when one party has achieved control of two branches of government. Things like conflict of interest in politicians' business holdings have become a sad joke, not only at the Federal level but also state Governors.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 04 2020, @10:13PM (1 child)
The problem is that the US Constitution, and many state constitutions, were written without considering political parties, among other things. The plan was for each representative or senator to be representing their constituents, not a faction or party. And as you might have guessed, that's almost never worked out that way.
For instance, in the Federalist Papers #10, James Madison argued that the large size of the US would prevent a minority faction from ever coordinating its efforts effectively to take over the country from the will of the majority. But that doesn't work when that minority faction is organizing itself within the halls of government in Washington DC, or coordinating with itself via modern telecommunications.
Basically, they screwed up in thinking that everyone who went into politics in the US would actually believe in democracy, i.e. the idea that the point of government is to carry out the will of the people provided a basic set of personal liberties are preserved.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ChrisMaple on Thursday March 05 2020, @03:44AM
Democracy is one of the things that the Founders deliberately avoided. They would have been horrified by the direct election of Senators, which is one of the sources of today's problems.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2020, @07:40PM
Only conservatives can hold such weird cognitive dissonance.
"Get government out of our lives, small government good."
"Let big government do what it wants, oil companies need taxpayer assistance to maximize profits!"
So government bad when it helps the majority of the people, and great when it funnels tax-payer money to corporations and greenlights environmental destruction of the very land we live and depend on? People brainwashed into supporting their own destruction.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Barenflimski on Wednesday March 04 2020, @07:44PM (11 children)
Only 25%* of the voting age population in the United States voted for the current administration. The election was not about BLM land. People voting for an administration does not mean they support every decision that administration might make. Tradition holds that we discuss these things and expect those processes will happen. New administrations get to change the direction the ship is going, not disregard the basic tenants of how the country works. One would hope that a vote for a president does not mean they are voting to give up any future input on decisions made by this administration.
Voting for an administration in no way says that "the public" made any decisions about BLM land. 81%** of Americans either voted against this administration or did not vote at all.
On top of that, the majority of the people that live in the United States live nowhere near these places. Some random small group of non-local voters does not legitimately have any rights to impose their agenda on any specific locale, arbitrarily.
This is why it is important to consider public comment and not act so capriciously.
*
62,984,828 - votes Trump/Pence
250,056,000 - Eligible American Voters
**
327,000,000 - Total population of the United States
62,984,828 - votes Trump/Pence
19% - Percentage of Americans that voted for the current administration
81% -Percentage of Americans that did not vote or say anything about this
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 04 2020, @08:35PM (1 child)
Some votes are more equal than others.
*
62,984,828 - votes Trump/Pence
65,853,514 - votes Clinton/Kaine
250,056,000 - Eligible American Voters
**
327,000,000 - Total population of the United States
62,984,828 - votes Trump/Pence
65,853,514 - votes Clinton/Kaine
19% - Percentage of Americans that voted for the current administration
20% - Percentage of Americans that voted for the administration that lost
81% -Percentage of Americans that did not vote or say anything about this
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2020, @03:20PM
We aren't a direct democracy for very good reasons. Stop trying to think we are one or should become one. It's the job of the states to elect the president, not the people.
You do realize the mob rule you're looking for would have meant the gays, immigrants, trans, etc... groups would all have been slaughtered right? That the entire government would have failed because 50% of the voters would never vote for a tax increase? We don't need the hell that for some reason you hold so highly.
USA is on it's second iteration of government. Our first attempt quickly failed because people don't do what's best for them in the long term.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2020, @08:37PM
Um, let's correct those numbers to show what really went down
*
250,056,000 - Eligible American Voters
128,838,342 - votes Trump/Clinton
51% of eligible Americans voters voted for the status quo
A lease here, a war there, it all evens out...
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2020, @08:52PM (4 children)
Correction. 48% (I even rounded it down for you) voted for the current administration. Any other number is nothing more than a story you tell yourself to sleep at night.
If you're going to bash on Trump do it legitimately without hiding behind twisted logic. You wrapped up the opposition to trump with an 81% summary that is a flat out lie and yet some how end up with a +5 insightful?
327,000,000 - Total population of the United States Does not constitute voting public. You even say so. That number includes babies, and who ever else is ineligible to vote. They had no say, they have no say, they do not contribute to the numbers. Yet you miraculously concluded that every one of those voters should be counted as a vote against.
So forget 18% and now we're back up to 25%, the voting age population that voted for the current administration. But wait!
In the 2016 elections there were (according to wikipedia) 128,838,342 votes cast. It matters not that there were 250 million eligible voters, because approx half of them couldn't be bothered to turn out. That's how much your politics matter. LESS THAN HALF THE VOTING POPULATION DIDN'T EVEN VOTE!
So let's see, what's the real number? Of the people you cared enough to vote, 48.8% See? This is what I hate about political fanatics. You can't calmly sit down and look at the facts without spinning it into a crisis. +5 insightful my ass.
(Score: 2) by Barenflimski on Wednesday March 04 2020, @10:56PM (3 children)
Where did I bash Trump? This Trump Derangement Syndrome must be a projection in your case.
I'm not going to argue about the numbers. I'm not talking politics. It is pretty clear what I'm talking about in response to your partisan mumbo-jumbo.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2020, @01:47AM (2 children)
Classic...
Through some shit numbers out. Then claim it's not about the numbers.
Make a deliberate political statement, using your shit numbers. Then claim you're not talking politics.
Finally, resort to name calling when you've been called out for your shit numbers.
I'll say it again. +5 insightful my ass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2020, @04:28PM (1 child)
Trump is a fuckhead criminal who is out in a few months. DEAL WITH IT
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2020, @07:12PM
Don't be so certain, if Biden is the only option for liberals you might find a rather significant amount of 3rd party votes again. At this point I'm starting to side with "burn it all down" that Trump represents. Between the neolib old Democrats and false info believing Republicans I don't see a way forward until those groups really suffer for their stupidity.
Voting for Biden is a status quo vote, and frankly I don't like the current state of affairs in the US. Wealth disparity, pay to win, mass surveillance, mass corruption. As a country if we can't even handle a criminal president so blatant as Trump then things need to collapse.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 04 2020, @09:01PM (1 child)
The reason not to consider public comment and act capriciously is that some favored companies that important people own stock in can make a lot of money. The effects of the decision on those pesky voters, and the opinions of the general public, aren't relevant when those are your only decision-making criteria.
Oh, you probably think that the USA is supposed to a democracy or something.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Barenflimski on Wednesday March 04 2020, @10:59PM
Right? T'is a shame.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ChrisMaple on Thursday March 05 2020, @03:50AM
The vote for President was 304-227. The numbers you cite were votes for slates of electors, not for President.