from the Put-that-in-your-pipe[line]-and-smoke-it dept.
In his ruling, Judge Brian Morris said “the Trump administration completely disregarded the climate effects of building the Keystone pipeline,” according to Vermont law professor Pat Parenteau.
“The Trump administration dismissed, with barely a paragraph in the decision document they issued, the whole idea that the pipeline would be contributing to climate change and the judge said that's not good enough,” Parenteau explains. “[He said], ‘You really do have to take into account the growing body of science that we all know and you have to explain why it makes sense, given that, to authorize yet another major piece of fossil fuel infrastructure that will take 40 years to pay off.’”
Morris is a former justice on the Montana Supreme Court and is considered a “very moderate judge,” Parenteau adds. “He’s hardly a radical environmentalist. There are some judges on the federal bench who are more pro-environment ..., but Judge Morris isn’t in that same category.”
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @06:16AM (2 children)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @06:20AM (1 child)
So he denies a small percentage of the oil but we take away all of his oil? What about non-oil sources of grid electricity? Nice revenge fantasy, loser.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @05:20PM
Just the usual conservative all-or-nothing black-and-white my-way-or-the-highway thinking.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @06:25AM (2 children)
My problem with Judgery is that Judges present themselves as these non-political, ethereal beings who rise above bias to keep social interaction moving solely along proper, lawful, procedural lines; yet, a "judgment" is almost always just a euphemism for a personal "gut feeling".
Why doesn't this judge specify exactly what would constitute a proper response. Is it 2 paragraphs? My gut feeling is that this judge's judgment is not good enough, and should be ignored.
He reveals his inanity with this line, though: "You really do have to take into account the growing body of science that we all know". He's talking out of his ass; his judgment may as well be a Facebook wall post.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by shrewdsheep on Monday December 17 2018, @11:13AM
In a sense I agree, however, you are shooting the messenger. The judicial systems all over the world are designed to employ inane judges who talk out of their asses. The assumption is that by having a hierarchy of courts, the inaneness can be kept down to a bearable limit. Then there are the cases where the judges really don't get it. That's when the law has to be made more precise. Let me suggest the HTAOTKSP-law: "When arguing about the keystone pipeline - and with an argument made to a positive effect - said argument has to contain at least 100 words, covering at least 40 unique words as defined in a generally accepted and lawful dictionary. Additionally, it has to at least contain the words body, climate, 40, fuel, and not to forget "pay off". This law hereby states, that all other wordings, be they in spirit of the law are not, shall be considered inadmissible on account of not following the letter of the law."
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @01:52PM
He's a judge making a judgement, so presumably there was court case, with, you know, expert witnesses and similar evidence.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Monday December 17 2018, @08:51AM (4 children)
I also appreciate the concern for the environment, but, isn't a judge supposed to judge according to laws? Is it the body of laws so big and confusing that a judge can rule whatever because something to support him will crop up? Very Italian of you.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Shimitar on Monday December 17 2018, @09:32AM (1 child)
The US system is quite different than the Italian system.
It seems "laws" are less important in the US than in any non-anglo system.
Coding is an art. No, java is not coding. Yes, i am biased, i know, sorry if this bothers you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 23 2018, @07:08PM
Since the US system was built to avoid the shortcomings of the british magistrate system and the rather abusive european colonial judiciaries that tended to make arbitrary judgements thanks to collusion between the state, the judges, and the police.
America has come full circle.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @07:22PM
Yup. That also means a judge can require anyone to make their case based on those laws, so the judge can actually judge merits of the case. If you try to circumvent any law by pretending it doesn't exist, a judge is perfectly qualified to send you back home to do your homework properly.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Monday December 17 2018, @07:23PM
I also appreciate the concern for the environment, but, isn't a judge supposed to judge according to laws?
The law requires a scientifically based environmental impact analysis.
Pretending that global warming is a Chinese hoax does not meet that standard.
The judge ruled appropriately.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @11:42AM
... now it's basically a mythic Keystone.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday December 17 2018, @12:07PM (13 children)
Aren't legal decisions supposed to be based on the law rather than what the judge believes? Did I sleep through that bit in social studies? I am not a Keystone Pipeline fan but neither am I a fan of judges massively overstepping their authority. There's some extremely good reasons we built in limits to the rulings they're allowed to issue.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @02:05PM (4 children)
When Obamacare was ruled unconstitutional on Friday, The Washington Post called the ruling "raw judicial activism and impossible to defend." Yet this nutjob halts the pipeline because the legal product that it supplies hurts his climate change feelings. Where are all the media reports on this ruling that aren't cheerleading?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @05:35PM (3 children)
The mass media is a psy ops propaganda campaign funded by the ruling class, overseen by the CIA, and directed at the working class. A major goal of this psy ops campaign is to keep the working class divided and fighting among themselves about meaningless shit.
We're not meant to fight about whether we should be fracking or pursuing distributed energy generation like rooftop solar on every house. We're not meant to fight about how the major energy companies subordinate infrastructure maintenance to the pursuit of squeezing out another 1% profit next quarter. The infrastructure issue comes up only in close proximity to catastrophes such as the natural gas explosions earlier this year during the couple weeks or so in which it cannot be ignored, and then it is promptly forgotten when the MSM herds us in another direction, such as arguing about a pussy grabber's pussy grabbing SCOTUS nominee's sexual escapades over 30 years ago whose track record of past rulings is barely indistinguishable from the Deporter-in-Chief's nominee.
The whole thing is utterly ridiculous. The MSM is compromised, and there is no point taking anything they say or do not say seriously.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @06:18PM (2 children)
Hold on here - this would take a huge number of people working on concert to make it happen. Do you mean to tell me that you honestly believe that there could possibly exist a group of people that large who can competently do such a thing?
Have you never seen a committee in action? Or a functional Dev/Ops/Mgmt group? Or even a batch of siblings who could work together for more than a day or two without falling off message or simply falling out?
I'm sorry, I can't buy it. Not even gibbons could manage that, and they're far more civilized and cooperative than humans.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @06:33PM (1 child)
wow, you're ignorant of this matter. look into it and you will see the op is right and i thought this was more commonly known. i guess you think all the shows and movies depicting law enforcement and gov agencies as the good guys (all all the other points they weasel into everything) are just good folks making good shows about other good folks? are you f'in serious?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @09:47PM
Nahh, it's not that at all. I just have an overdeveloped belief in Napoleon's Dictum: "Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."
There's no huge conspiracy - they can't hold together, people just aren't wired that way. It's FAR more likely that it's a bunch of people screwing up royally but with the best of intentions.
(Score: 4, Informative) by pe1rxq on Monday December 17 2018, @03:45PM (7 children)
If I read it correctly the judge is judging based on the law.
The law says that the government has to take the environment into account when making certain decisions.
Basicly he said that writing 'we don't care' in their decision was not good enough according to said law.
We can debate who has interpreted the law correctly, and he might be interpreting it with a personal bias, but at least there is a law he is basing his judgement on.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday December 17 2018, @04:28PM (6 children)
If you're talking about TFA, you don't read it right. No legal basis for the ruling is cited or even alluded to.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Informative) by cmdrklarg on Monday December 17 2018, @06:41PM (5 children)
IANAL, but from what I understand the law says that the government is required to do an environmental study before allowing a project such as this to go through. The Trump Administration tried to do this by "phoning it in". Not good enough.
To speak for myself, I'd much rather have judges who rule from the spirit of the law as well as the letter.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday December 17 2018, @11:04PM (4 children)
The key word there would be "before" no? Like the one that was done long ago?
I don't dislike taking the spirit of the law into account but that needs to be done very carefully. "They bloody well meant $blah and you know it" is fine but creating whole new law out of thin air just because it agrees well with a previous law is not. Legislators should legislate and judges should rule on existing legislation only.
Good example: SCOTUS saying the phrase "the people" in the second amendment does not in fact mean "the state". Pretty much every bit of correspondence from the time agrees that they very specifically meant "the people".
Bad example: Every abuse of the commerce clause ever. The commerce clause was created to keep Georgia from slapping tariffs on or banning imports from Carolina and the like. This was in doubt to absolutely nobody back in the day. It was never remotely meant to authorize the federal government to force citizens to purchase health insurance or a million other things that everyone except lawyers seem to be able to understand instinctively were outside its meaning.
Fuzzing the boundary between legislation and judicial activism is not a road we want to go down. Allowing unelected and unaccountable judges to create law is straight up, by definition tyranny. Regardless of if a given decision goes your way or not, you should not be wanting this. Your side will not always be in power and it will be used against you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday December 18 2018, @06:10PM (3 children)
I can't disagree with most of your sentiment. But please note, ruling only from the letter of the law is just as easily turned to tyranny as ruling from the spirit. Legislation can always be changed, provided there is enough incentive to do so, same with judge's rulings. You would think that people would understand the concept of the other guy being able to wield the power they are abusing, but too many don't have that long game in mind. They only want the short term benefits.
"Judicial activisim" is the term used by the side that currently doesn't have the stick. They are quite happy to engage in it once they have it, aren't they?
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:28PM (2 children)
Everyone's side but mine, seems like. That's not even a joke. The result of this specific decision I like but I still think it was a shit decision.
My side is a side of one, by the way. I refuse to outsource my values or reasoning.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:50PM (1 child)
It is commendable that you think for yourself, but a side of one can have a LOT of potential opponents, and no backup. I suspect that you'd band together with like-minded people if something threatened you and yours.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 19 2018, @11:09AM
I'll band together on individual issues. I will never advocate for that which I believe to be wrong or against that which I believe to be right though. Not for any gain.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @01:52PM
Circumstances argue otherwise
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday December 17 2018, @02:10PM (7 children)
First thing I'd point out about the Keystone XL pipeline is that it was championed and pushed by the Obama administration, with Hillary Clinton as one of its main cheerleaders. TFA wants to use it as another club to beat on Trump by mentioning his name several times. That part of the story is stupid partisan nonsense.
That said, the more interesting questions remain, is the pipeline worth building? Is it better for the environment to have the pipeline, or not? Is it better for the economy to have the pipeline, or not?
They are taking a lot of oil out of the Bakken Formation. Right now they're doing it in tanker cars in trains and tanker trucks. It's slow and error prone. The chances of them derailing or crashing and spilling the oil they carry is higher than a pipeline. So the risk to the environment of an oil spill is lower with a pipeline than with trains and trucks. Building the pipeline itself will not harm the environment; the landscape of North Dakota is so incredibly tedious that there is almost nothing you could do to it that would not be an improvement.
Not building the pipeline will not stop them taking the oil out of the area. That's not on offer. So basically we're talking about not whether to take the oil out, but how.
Is it better for the economy to use that oil, or not? It's better. If the United States is now a net exporter of oil, that means a portion of the $365 billion we spend on oil every year is now staying here. That's good for people here. Also, it is for sure better for North Dakota, which has until recently been one of the poorest areas in the country, so worthless is its land. Now, it's thriving with the oil revenues.
As an environmentalist myself, I would like to see us move entirely to renewables as quickly as possible. I would rather see North Dakota get its coin via wind farms that harvest the incessant winds that howl across that flat expanse of nothing. I would love for fossil fuels to go the way of the dinosaurs. But I don't see the Keystone XL project as the hill for anyone to die on.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday December 17 2018, @03:16PM (2 children)
Pipelines leak. These leaks can go unnoticed for extended periods, leaking tremendous volumes of oil.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @06:44PM
i wonder how cheap it would be (or economical given the situation) to install sensors at every joint. i'm assuming they leak at the joints and not rust out in the middle of the pipe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @10:59PM
Bullshit. Detectors notice as soon as oil is missing. It's not like Hillary's email server where the leaks can go unnoticed for extended periods.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday December 17 2018, @07:21PM
The key difference being that the Obama administration performed it's legally required due diligence.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @07:26PM (1 child)
So what you're saying is that Drumpf will scuttle the project anyway, regardless of this ruling?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @09:33PM
What if Trump supported the judge's green inclination? Now he only needs to obey the official decision.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @02:07AM
Follow the money of who does not want it. You will find at the end of it 2 billionaires that own railroads.