Judge blocks drilling ban

[lordbt]

The problem is that activist judging usually means "anything a judge does that I disagree with." I don't think it's a particularly useful concept because it's most used by people who have no idea what they're talking about to describe decisions they don't like. But, this is activist judging in the sense that it goes a good bit further than judges usually go in second-guessing administrative decision-making.

Goes further in what way?

 

[XTE]

The problem is that activist judging usually means "anything a judge does that I disagree with." I don't think it's a particularly useful concept because it's most used by people who have no idea what they're talking about to describe decisions they don't like. But, this is activist judging in the sense that it goes a good bit further than judges usually go in second-guessing administrative decision-making.

It's activist judging because he owns stock in the companies he is allowing to drill with inadequate clean-up technology. He is suppose to recuse himself, BY LAW, and has failed to do so. He doesn't even want to temporarily halt the decision waiting for appeal. He simply wants to abuse his power to make money for himself.

A Judge is suppose to form an unbiased opinion, and I have a hard time thinking anyone will readily make a decision to throw away their own money.

Hopefully, we will find out that judges need to be divested in order to be a judge at all. It's going to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is heavily Republican to the point that an Energy Decision arrived at last year could not be handled there because the judges did the proper thing and recused themselves for conflict of interests.

This judge should absolutely be ashamed of himself, but knowing a lot of people on that side, he is probably laughing at the power given and that power being abused, saying, "look what I can do....!"

When pride comes from money instead of principals, you get these types of things....

 

[XTE]

Here is a picture of him laughing:

 

[tanzanos]

.

 

[manchambo]

Goes further in what way?

For the most part, discretionary decisions of administrative agencies are given a good deal of deference (google "Chevron deference" for an explanation of certain elements of the doctrine--the oil-company connection is a coincidence).

In light of that deference, it is quite uncommon for a judge to rule an administrative decision "arbitrary and capricious." In that sense, this decision is "activist."

 

[lordbt]

For the most part, discretionary decisions of administrative agencies are given a good deal of deference (google "Chevron deference" for an explanation of certain elements of the doctrine--the oil-company connection is a coincidence).

In light of that deference, it is quite uncommon for a judge to rule an administrative decision "arbitrary and capricious." In that sense, this decision is "activist."

So if an agency makes an arbitrary and capricious decision, the court should just let it stand? Do you wish to be ruled by arbitrary and capricious decisions, or just ones? And if just ones, to whom do you expect to plead your case if the courts give deference to the arbitrary?

 

[NotreDame]

It's activist judging because he owns stock in the companies he is allowing to drill with inadequate clean-up technology. He is suppose to recuse himself, BY LAW, and has failed to do so. He doesn't even want to temporarily halt the decision waiting for appeal. He simply wants to abuse his power to make money for himself.

A Judge is suppose to form an unbiased opinion, and I have a hard time thinking anyone will readily make a decision to throw away their own money.

Hopefully, we will find out that judges need to be divested in order to be a judge at all. It's going to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is heavily Republican to the point that an Energy Decision arrived at last year could not be handled there because the judges did the proper thing and recused themselves for conflict of interests.

This judge should absolutely be ashamed of himself, but knowing a lot of people on that side, he is probably laughing at the power given and that power being abused, saying, "look what I can do....!"

When pride comes from money instead of principals, you get these types of things....

You do not know what you are talking about. The judge did not own any stock in any companies which are parties in the lawsuit. The judge sold his stock long before the oil rig disaster and the institution of this lawsuit.3rd UPDATE: Judge In Moratorium Case Sold Exxon Stock This Week - FOXBusiness.com

Second, if the judge did own stock in a company which was party to the lawsuit, then this would constitute as a conflict of interest, and not necessarily judicial activism.

 

[Gawron]

I posted that same information a few pages back, NoterDame, and nobody paid attention then either.

 

[JustOneWay]

You do not know what you are talking about. The judge did not own any stock in any companies which are parties in the lawsuit. The judge sold his stock long before the oil rig disaster and the institution of this lawsuit.3rd UPDATE: Judge In Moratorium Case Sold Exxon Stock This Week - FOXBusiness.com

Second, if the judge did own stock in a company which was party to the lawsuit, then this would constitute as a conflict of interest, and not necessarily judicial activism.

The judge sold the stock the same day he made the ruling. telling another "you dont know what you are talking about" regarding up to the minute personal dealings of a judge, is a bit harsh, wouldn't you say?

 

[JustOneWay]

I posted that same information a few pages back, NoterDame, and nobody paid attention then either.

Perhaps it is because your posts are too confusing to read because you refuse to use the forum quoting format....

 

[NotreDame]

For the most part, discretionary decisions of administrative agencies are given a good deal of deference (google "Chevron deference" for an explanation of certain elements of the doctrine--the oil-company connection is a coincidence).

In light of that deference, it is quite uncommon for a judge to rule an administrative decision "arbitrary and capricious." In that sense, this decision is "activist."

This reasoning is non-sense. Let's see, so essentially you are arguing since a judge normally does not rule administrative agency action as "arbitrary and capricious," and the judge, in doing so here has broken from the norm, then the judge's decision is activist. The fact is, your assumption activism is when a judge's decision does not conform to the norm of what other judges are doing is false. Activism is not defined by scrutinizing whether a judge's decision conforms to what other judges are doing.

What your argument ignores is the fact a judge can break from the norm, declare some agency action as arbitrary and capricious, without constituting as activism. The proper inquiry is not whether the judge has deviated from the norm of what other judges are doing but whether the judge's ruling is consistent with the law, or adheres to the law. When and where a judge's ruling is inconsistent with the law, or does not adhere to the law, then we have activism. Activism is, in part, those instances where a judge's ruling cannot be reconciled with the text of the law. Hence, the fact the judge deviated from the norm is not indicative of whether activism is present with this judge.

We need to know what the law says regarding a judge's review of agency action.

I suspect you have not read this opinion. I suspect you do not know the precise legal standard for evaluating agency action. I suspect you are venturing an uninformed opinion. May I suggest if this is true, then this is a very unwise course of action.

From the opinion itself.

Normally, an agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. The reviewing court should not attempt itself to make up for such deficiencies.

Then the court went on to say, ""The [Interior Secretary's] Report makes no effort to explicitly justify the moratorium: it does not discuss any irreparable harm that would warrant a suspension of operations, it does not explain how long it would take to implement the recommended safety measures ...A court determining whether some agency action is arbitrary and capricious under the APA makes its decision on the basis of the “whole record.” (citation omitted) This record “consists of the administrative record compiled by the agency in advance of litigation, not any record thereafter constructed in the reviewing court.” (citation omitted) Indeed, because the Court’s concern is with the rationality of the agency’s decision making, “post hoc explanations . . . are simply an inadequate basis for the exercise of substantive review of an administrative decision.” (citation omitted) "

Essentially, the agency did not make a sufficient evidentiary finding justifying its action. In other words, the agency took action and did not justify it by evidence or a sufficient evidentiary record. Hence, on this basis, I think the judge's decision is a correct one, or at least reasonable.

Ostensibly, this ruling is not activism.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by JustOneWay:

"Perhaps it is because your posts are too confusing to read because you refuse to use the forum quoting format...."

You can't read this and tell I am responding to you?

 

[NotreDame]

The judge sold the stock the same day he made the ruling. telling another "you dont know what you are talking about" regarding up to the minute personal dealings of a judge, is a bit harsh, wouldn't you say?

The stock the judge sold was to a company not a party to the lawsuit. The stock belonged to Exxon, and Exxon was not a party to the lawsuit and was not contesting the moratorium in front of Judge Feldman.

I agree, however, my tone could have probably been more congenial. Perhaps I should edit the post.

 

[JustOneWay]

The stock the judge sold was to a company not a party to the lawsuit. The stock belonged to Exxon, and Exxon was not a party to the lawsuit and was not contesting the moratorium in front of Judge Feldman.

I agree, however, my tone could have probably been more congenial. Perhaps I should edit the post.

Dont do it on my account. The judge overturned a ban on all drilling in the Gulf, correct? Is BP the only operation drilling in the Gulf? Doesn't Exxon drill in the Gulf?

 

[NotreDame]

The problem is that activist judging usually means "anything a judge does that I disagree with." I don't think it's a particularly useful concept because it's most used by people who have no idea what they're talking about to describe decisions they don't like. But, this is activist judging in the sense that it goes a good bit further than judges usually go in second-guessing administrative decision-making.

No, this is incorrectly defining the phrase. Activist judge, at least, refers to those judicial actions and opinions which do not adhere to the text of the law.

Based on your logic, the Supreme Court overruling precedent constitutes as activism quite simply because they normally do not overrule precedent. Or, in the alternative activism is when the Supreme Court, or any appellate court, issues a ruling in some specified area which breaks from their habit of ruling a particular way, although they do not overrule precedent.

 

[NotreDame]

Dont do it on my account. The judge overturned a ban on all drilling in the Gulf, correct? Is BP the only operation drilling in the Gulf? Doesn't Exxon drill in the Gulf?

Sure Exxon does but I do not think this fact means he has a conflict of interest. The link I provided included an exposition why his owning of stock in Exxon likely did not constitute as a conflict of interest.

 

[manchambo]

No, this is incorrectly defining the phrase. Activist judge, at least, refers to those judicial actions and opinions which do not adhere to the text of the law.

Based on your logic, the Supreme Court overruling precedent constitutes as activism quite simply because they normally do not overrule precedent. Or, in the alternative activism is when the Supreme Court, or any appellate court, issues a ruling in some specified area which breaks from their habit of ruling a particular way, although they do not overrule precedent.

You keep pretending that I like the term or suggest that it has some particular, useful meaning. I don't think the term has any particular use or logic, so I don't see why you're trying to show that my use of the term is illogical.

And I don't find your definition particularly meaningful. If you know anything about law, you know that each decision at least arguably "adheres to the text of the law." No judge ever purposely does not. Instead, the controversy in legal opinions almost always stems from disagreement about what the "text of the law" is (ie, what law applies) or what the "text of the law" means. There is no external, objective way of saying that a particular decision doesn't comply with the "text of the law" in most instances. Your definition amounts to little more than disagreement with a decision. From my point of view, decisions are right or wrong. If they don't comply with what I understand to be the "text of the law," they are wrong.

A more meaningful use of the word "activism" would refer to the intrusion of judges into other branches' areas of authority--such as by gainsaying discretionary administrative decisions. The decision in this particular case may well be right--I haven't read the decisions, much less the briefs and background materials, as closely as I would have to to have a strong opinion about that.

What I do know is that, if a federal judge declared an anti-immigration administrative decision arbitrary and capricious, conservatives would be hopping around about activism. That's because the term has very little truth-content, and serves mostly to express doctrinal or political disagreement with judicial decisions. After all, the republicans didn't protest too much about the activism in Bush v. Gore, did they?

 

[manchambo]

So if an agency makes an arbitrary and capricious decision, the court should just let it stand? Do you wish to be ruled by arbitrary and capricious decisions, or just ones? And if just ones, to whom do you expect to plead your case if the courts give deference to the arbitrary?

I didn't say anything about the correctness of the decision. I'm merely pointing out what a useless concept "activism" is in discussing judicial decisions.

 

[tanzanos]

.

 

[Vylo]

Obama seems to be making a great effort....at becoming one of worst presidents in history.

Banning oil drilling for a whole region during a recession? Brilliant.

What in the world was he thinking? How does that make any sense? Shouldn't they be focused on cleaning up this mess and learning from it rather then shooting the economy in the foot?