SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
AlterNet reports
A federal judge ruled [June 14] that the Trump administration must conduct additional environmental review of the Dakota Access Pipeline, handing a limited victory to Native American tribes fighting the administration's decision to move forward with the project.
In an extensive opinion,[PDF][1] Washington, DC District Court Judge James Boasberg sided with the tribes by agreeing the Army Corps of Engineers "did not consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, human rights, or environmental justice."
[...] Boasberg did not order a shutdown of operations on the pipeline, which began pumping oil early this month. The tribes and pipeline owner Energy Transfer Partners are ordered to appear in court next week to decide next legal steps, and the tribes are expected to argue for a full shutdown of pipeline operations.
[1] Link in article redirects.
Previous coverage:
Dakota Access Pipeline Suffers Oil Leak Even Before Becoming Operational
Recent News Dispatches From Standing Rock (DAPL)
Army Corp of Engineers Now Accepting Public Comment on the Dakota Access Pipeline
Army Corps of Engineers Blocks the Dakota Access Pipeline
Standing Rock Protester May Lose Her Arm Because of Police Grenades
Water Cannons Used in Sub-Freezing Temperatures at Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Protest
Standing Rock Protestors Gassed and Attacked; Bundy Gang Acquitted [Updated]
Journalist Charged in North Dakota with Rioting; Case is Dismissed
(Score: 0, Interesting) by khallow on Monday June 19 2017, @12:31PM (9 children)
I notice too the judge ignored the Obama administration's malfeasance in deliberate obstruction of pipeline construction and operation. For example, the judge stated:
while ignoring that the Obama administration had done this for real in the Fall of 2016 and the latter Corps decision was a mere reversal of a prior bad and unlawful decision.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by VLM on Monday June 19 2017, @12:36PM (3 children)
The judge has Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Its highly unlike the judge knows anything about the oil biz or ecology, so naturally they're in charge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @04:27PM (2 children)
This commenter has Trump Phelatiotic Syndrome.
Its highly unlike(ly) the keyboard warrior knows anything about the oil biz or ecology, so naturally they support Trump and spew uninformed bile.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday June 19 2017, @06:06PM (1 child)
Google has "can't find that word" syndrome.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday June 19 2017, @09:33PM
It's Felatio, but on a person with really small....... hands... yeah. Hands.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @03:27PM
Looks like no one cares to push back against the cabal of corporatist evil that us all over these arrixles. I'm not going to bother with more than calling you out.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 19 2017, @06:01PM (1 child)
Guess who's approval is required to grant an easement that crosses a US border? Guess who's approval wasn't granted.
It's almost like one of the President's powers is to veto bad ideas...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 23 2017, @12:50AM
No US border was crossed by this pipeline.
The power to veto bad ideas is the power to veto good ideas.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 19 2017, @07:45PM (1 child)
I notice too the judge ignored the Obama administration's malfeasance in deliberate obstruction of pipeline construction and operation. For example, the judge stated:
The Corps’ February 8, 2017, decision to grant the easement was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law because the Corps reversed a prior policy without reasoned justification and because the decision constituted a breach of trust responsibilities
Guess who wasn't president in Feb, 2017.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @09:56PM
Guess who didn't read their parent's post.
Whether or not you agree, the argument was a rational one to make... quoting the courts saying "Trump did bad" and then explaining how Obama (supposedly) did the exact same thing but wasn't called out on it.