Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Monday June 19 2017, @11:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the considering-the-other-side dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @01:26PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @01:26PM (#527887)

    You are absolutely correct. The Trump haters (and I did not vote for him) are irrational. They have let their blind hatred of what they think he represents to cloud their judgment of everything (they think) he stands for. The plain letter text of law is being contorted to suit their own prejudices. It wouldn't be so funny if it wasn't primarily coming from the oh-so-tolerant left.

    And this is coming from a Classic Liberal! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism [wikipedia.org]

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by arulatas on Monday June 19 2017, @02:48PM (4 children)

    by arulatas (3600) on Monday June 19 2017, @02:48PM (#527927)

    The problem with your logic is that many had issues with this process before Trump was even involved.

    --
    ----- 10 turns around
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @04:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @04:29PM (#527988)

      Woah woah woah, you can't just call out their psychological projection like that. They hated Obama so much and attacked him for being bla.. ahem, "liberal" and now they naturally assume their opponents are doing the same thing with Trump. Reason has left these mad men! Let sleeping dogs lie or they'll wake up and shit all over your shoes.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 19 2017, @06:06PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 19 2017, @06:06PM (#528062) Journal

      The problem with your logic is that many had issues with this process before Trump was even involved.

      Hmm...I wonder if those issues could have prevented the issuance of the original permits?

      And then, when word came down to approve no matter what, I wonder if they ensured those issues were resolved?

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 23 2017, @12:55AM (1 child)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 23 2017, @12:55AM (#529735) Journal

      The problem with your logic is that many had issues with this process before Trump was even involved.

      I'll note here the judge was involved solely due to Trump's involvement.

      • (Score: 2) by arulatas on Friday June 23 2017, @12:57PM

        by arulatas (3600) on Friday June 23 2017, @12:57PM (#529990)

        Fair point. I just wanted to point out that not everyone who had issues with the pipeline had Trump anywhere in that decision.

        --
        ----- 10 turns around