Judge who overturned drilling moratorium holds stock in drilling companies

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Yahoo News

Judge who overturned drilling moratorium holds stock in drilling companies
2 mins ago

The federal judge who overturned Barack Obama's offshore drilling moratorium appears to own stock in numerous companies involved in the offshore oil industry—including Transocean, which leased the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig to BP prior to its April 20 explosion in the Gulf of Mexico—according to 2008 financial disclosure reports.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman issued a preliminary injunction today barring the enforcement of Barack Obama's proposed six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling, arguing that the ban is too broad.

According to Feldman's 2008 financial disclosure form, posted online by Judicial Watch , the judge owned stock in Transocean, as well as five other companies that are either directly or indirectly involved in the offshore drilling business.

It's not surprising that Feldman, who is a judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, has invested in the offshore drilling business—an AP investigation found earlier this month that more than half the federal judges in the districts affected by the BP spill have financial ties to the oil and gas industry.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100622/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2771

[earthboundmisfit]

1. Well, well, well...

(no pun intended)

[Judi Lynn]

5. Well said. n/t

[wordpix]

97. so judge says, leave well enough alone so my stocks don't drop

Hey judge, your Transocean stock is already worth zip.

[wordpix]

104. "federal rules only require that judges report a range of values"

so what's reported here is only a "range." Keep that in mind. Judge might have a "range" that's higher but doesn't have to report that. :grr:

[Octafish]

40. Wouldn't this be, you know, a conflict of interest?

Not that there's anything right with that.

[activa8tr]

45. Cute comment, and I see you used the poster boy for this... LOL n/t

[Larry Ogg]

84. Too be a good citizen, politically correct and morally aloof...

You cannot say "It's a conflict of interest."

But you can call it a conspiracy theory, if you would like, so as no one will take the story serious...

Or you can just say it's a mater of political opinion, where conscience, or the lack thereof,
must always play short shrift in the pursuit of subjective reality, common decency, monetary profits or the facade of justice...

[BrklynLiberal]

115. ..and that ain't just three holes in the ground....

[yellerpup]

2. Predictable.

:kick: & R

[Oceansaway]

3. surprise, surprise, surprise....nt

[sakabatou]

4. Conflict of interest? No, couldn't be that...

[mod mom]

43. Not considered conflict of interest if Judge is republican.

:mad:

[RandySF]

6. Please tell me he can be impeached for this.

[davidinalameda]

20. for what?

is there evidence that he made this ruling so he could profit?

the guy probably has his stocks in a blind trust

maybe he doesn't but like I said, is there any evidence that he made this ruling so he could profit from it?

[barbtries]

74. not a blind trust

http://slabbed.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/katrinas-who-dat-judge-martin-feldman-now-dabbling-in-oil/

[atreides1]

75. You can't find evidence

If you don't conduct an investigation!

[liberation]

76. Did I miss the sarcasm somewhere?

Please tell me you ain't serious...

[wordpix]

100. uh, I own oil stocks, therefore I rule the oil corps' way---conflict of interest, pure and simple

He owned TRANSOCEAN, for gawd's sake and that alone should have made him recuse himself.

But now he has his reputation on the line.

[No Elephants]

108. That is so not the standard. "A judge must avoid even the appearance of Impropriety."

THAT is the applicable standard.

Hence, Justice Breyer, who owns Monsanto stock (among many others) recused himself from Geerston Farms v. Monsanto, even though he has only 1 of 9 votes.

And, no, there is no reason to assume this judge's stocks are in a blind trust.

[AsahinaKimi]

28. self delted

never mind. :( (Looks like Big Oil wins again.)

[Vidar]

71. Impeachment is probably--unfortuantely--still "off the table."

[NRaleighLiberal]

7. I am sick and tired of what is going on. Can't stand it. Such incredible bullshit!

There are so many forces aligned against true progress, against Obama, against Democrats, against anyone who wants to do the right thing, for our country, the world and the future.

It is all totally screwed by power grabs, attention grabs, greed or religion used as a weapon. When will this - and HOW will this - end? How can those who care take things back from the corrupt and self serving?

[barbtries]

68. well said

i feel exactly the same.

[liberation]

77. Taking back implies that those who care ever "had it" to begin with...

... I honestly don't think that has ever been the case. And as screwed as it may seem, this *right now* is probably the closest we have ever been to "sanity" which is not saying much....

[No Elephants]

109. Wrong.

[spartan61]

8. So when the next "spill" happens,

who will be blamed??? Obama???

[No Elephants]

110. Maybe whoever gives the go ahead for the drilling at least shares blame???

[DeSwiss]

9. Since Obama is appealing.....

...I hope this conflict of interest is cited in the http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/22/obama-offshore-drilling-m_n_621250.html">appeal.

K&R

[glinda]

33. Appeal?????? The Judge should be disbarred.

[DeSwiss]

37. No argument from me, I agree.

But Barack "Bipartisanship" Obama probably wouldn't. He seems to want to make friends with his enemies, rather than dispose of them....

[siligut]

86. "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"

Quote by Abraham Lincoln. No doubt Obama is brilliant and hard-working, but he does lack a healthy sense of cynicism.

[No Elephants]

120. Neutralizing, maybe, Abe. (Or maybe you're just kidding yourself.)

"Destroying," no. Not unless your friendship is deadly.

[DeSwiss]

126. Yeah but....

...who in their right mind would want to be friends with any Republican of today? Sarah Palin? Rand Paul? Joe Wilson? Rick Perry? Need I go on??? ;)

on edit: spelling

[aquart]

10. Impeach his criminal ass.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

11. What's his record, if any, on previous oil industry cases?

Does anyone know?

[Skink]

12. Reagan Judge.

[MineralMan]

13. Surprise, Surprise!

Not really.

[Lugnut]

14. From the no shit, Sherlock, file.....

I'm shocked. :eyes:

[mikelgb]

15. no shit

[Zorra]

16. Well, duh. nt

[Frustratedlady]

17. Reagan appointee?

Any more people get killed, their blood will be on his hands and those Repugs who insisted on overturning the moratorium.

[elleng]

18. With all the nay-sayers here, HAS ANYONE READ THE 22 PAGE DECISION???

or have ANY IDEA of the standards for an INJUNCTION?

The judge 'wrote that the Obama administration had failed to justify the need for the sweeping suspension, which he characterized as “generic, indeed punitive.”

He wrote that “the blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/us/23drill.html?hp

The Decision:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33421810/Text-of-ruling-blocking-Obama-s-6-month-deepwater-drilling-moratorium-in-the-Gulf

[Ignis]

26. Nah, we're not smart enough. Please do explain how we're all wrong, though.

:eyes:

He wrote that “the blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.”

The judge's risk assessment is faulty.

If there's no established, successful remediation plan from a catastrophic failure, then yes, you bet your ass that all these wells "universally present an imminent danger."

[elleng]

39. 'Wrong?' Probably not,

but those who criticise the person, w/o understanding the decision, are foolish, imo.

[liberation]

80. And pretending the conflict of interest has nothing to do with the decision

which is the main reason why people are criticizing this judge... strikes me as a bit of a red herring.

[No Elephants]

111. Point is, he should have recused himself.

[Statistical]

66. So rigs at 499 ft deep = 100% safe and rigs at one foot deeper = unacceptable risk?

That was the point of the Judge decision.

The govt made a sweeping ban without justification. It didn't ban rigs with similar charecteristics as the DWH, it didn't ban wells with similar geography (there are many ultra deep wells in shallow water).

It simply said
499.9999999 ft = business as usual.
500.0+ ft = banned, no recourse.

[Ignis]

87. The government drew a line in the sand to quickly respond to a crisis.

Sure, a progressive scale of risk-by-depth (or other factors) would be great, but that can come in time, once better risk models have been run.

In the meanwhile, to stop further drilling that could result in unstoppable, catastrophic leaks, I strongly support the administration's attempt to effect change quickly in this instance.

Legislature can catch up later, at its usual snail's pace for anything that doesn't involve renaming french fries to Freedom Fries.

[No Elephants]

112. What level of scrutiny is applicable? Exercises of police power by the Exec. in an energency are

usually upheld under a rational basis standard; and this case presents zero reason to apply a greater level of scrutiny.

Obviously, a line has to be drawn somewhere, unless ALL drilling is banned. I doubt this judge would have upheld a blanket ban--or any ban.

[barbtries]

70. you're right

and when the administration appeals this ruling, that should be the number one point: these wells should not go forward until there is a TRUE and provable plan to ameliorate the damage when the next one blows.

[sam kane]

98. Prove they *don't* present an imminent danger.

Faulty logic with gusher killing entire populations.

[Ignis]

107. Did you respond to the wrong post?

:shrug:

If not, could you please re-state your comment? I don't understand your point.

[Robbien]

32. Since all drilling companies are working off the same disaster recovery plan

And all companies are operating under the same federal safety inspection plan.

I would say that justifies a blanket moratorium.

[elleng]

38. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

[mod mom]

44. "failed to justify the need" if this epic disaster isn't indicative of need, then I don't know what

is

[aggiesal]

50. So when a plane crashes, ...

the NTSB grounds all planes of the same model. So that they
can be inspected and maybe find preliminary clues as to why
that model plane had crashed.

By this judges logic, all planes of the same model should
continue to fly, because we don't know why it crashed, and
until we do, it would be punitive to the airlines that own
the same model to ground them.

Makes sense to me :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Snazzy]

58. eaxctly what struck me reading it

he says (and says similarly in a couple of spots):

"... the blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger."

That's exactly the main and strongest argument for the "blanket moratorium." The "no one knows why" part.

That and (1) the incredible scale of the disaster, which, of course, is ongoing; meaning we should add (2) the inability to respond in anywhere near a sufficient fashion to a deep-water gusher. Put all three together and it's hard to imagine a stronger case to stop what you are doing by order of the Feds.

(You could also throw in the apparent malfeasance/incompetence/oily skinny-dipping/double-dipping/what-have-you of the regulating authorities, notably MMS, while you are at it, which, I think, calls into question everything operating or approved and about to).

Frankly, I'm not even sure this should be in court at all. Seems pretty damn clear from lots of stuff the judge quotes (I don't doubt plenty there's that he doesn't) that the Feds do indeed have a variety of off switches and/or various strong authority. Aren't there numerous ways, such as declaring some sort of disaster (isn't it one yet?), executive order, etc., that it gets out of court? 60 days of shut down is the least that should be happening.

edits: clarity

[ProudDad]

53. Since he's a judge with an obvious conflict of interest

An obvious predilection to find in favor of Big Oil...

Who should have recused his ass!

And there are plenty of pro-corporate (anti-human) "decisions" for him to misuse...going back to and beyond the misinterpreted Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific, the "body of law" promoting corporate interests over the needs and desires of human beings...

And that a pro-environment judge could find law and statute to support that moratorium on 1/10 of 1 percent of the current drilling operations in the gulf...

Especially in light of the REALITY that the fucking oil industry OBVIOUSLY doesn't know how to stop a spill at those depths and ALL of the permissions were granted on the same pack of lies and distortions...

And IT HAPPENED!!! Kaboom!!! So they can't call it an impossible set of circumstances...

But a pro-corporate judge found some minor technicalities and exercised the nuclear option against common sense and a prudent moratorium...

Proving again that Charles Dickens was right, "The law is an ass."

And we're toast... :puke:

[elleng]

59. From the Decision:

Although the experts agreed with the safety recommendations contained in the body of the main Report, five of the National Academy experts and three of the other experts have publicly stated that they “do not agree with the six month blanket moratorium” on floating drilling. They envisioned a more limited kind of moratorium, but a blanket moratorium was added after their final review, they complain, and was never agreed to by them. A factor that might cause some apprehension about the probity of the process that led to the Report. . .

The APA cautions that an agency action may only be set aside if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A); see Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971). The reviewing court must decide whether the agency acted within the scope of its authority, “whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 415-16; . . .

The Court recognizes that the compliance of the thirty-three affected rigs with current government regulations may be irrelevant if the regulations are insufficient or if MMS, the government’s own agent, itself is suspected of being corrupt or incompetent.10 Nonetheless, the Secretary’s determination that a six-month moratorium on issuance of new permits and on drilling by the thirty-three rigs is necessary does not seem to be fact-specific and refuses to take into measure the safety records of those others in the Gulf.11 There is no evidence presented indicating that the Secretary balanced the concern for environmental safety with the policy of making leases available for development. There is no suggestion that the Secretary considered any alternatives: for example, an individualized suspension of activities on target rigs until they reached compliance with the new federal regulations said to be recommended for immediate implementation. Indeed, the regulations themselves seem to contemplate an individualized determination by authorizing the suspension of “all or any part of a lease or unit area.”

fn 11: Most of the currently permitted rigs passed MMS inspection after the Deepwater Horizon exploded. According to the Report, since 1969, before Deepwater Horizon, only some three blowouts have occurred . . . all in other parts of the world, not the Gulf.

12 Of interest to the Court is the Report’s conflicting observation that while “the rate of blowouts per well has not increased . . . the experience of the BP Oil Spill illustrates the significant challenges in deepwater drilling.”

The Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency, but the agency must “cogently explain why it has exercised its discretion in a given manner.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 48. It has not done so.12

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is an unprecedented, sad, ugly and inhuman disaster. What seems clear is that the federal government has been pressed by what happened on the Deepwater Horizon into an otherwise sweeping confirmation that all Gulf deepwater drilling activities put us all in a universal threat of irreparable harm. While the implementation of regulations and a new culture of safety are supportable by the Report and the documents presented, the blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.

On the record now before the Court, the defendants have failed to cogently reflect the decision to issue a blanket, generic, indeed punitive, moratorium with the facts developed during the thirty-day review. . .

While a suspension of activities directed after a rational interpretation of the evidence could outweigh the impact on the plaintiffs and the public, here, the Court has found the plaintiffs would likely succeed in showing that the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. An invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33421810/Text-of-ruling-block...

[No Elephants]

113. What does that have to do with the fact that he should have recused himself?

I'm sure a highly persuasive opinion could have been written to uphold the moratorium, if this judge--known to be result-oriented and activist--had been so inclined. Every lawyer ir judge worth his or her salt could write persuasively on either side if this issue (and most issues).

"Not cogently argued?" Rather subjective.

[elleng]

118. Nothing

[wordpix]

101. and your point is?

[Judi Lynn]

19. "Katrina’s “who dat Judge Martin Feldman” now dabbling in oil!"

Katrina’s “who dat Judge Martin Feldman” now dabbling in oil!
June 22, 2010

by nowdoucit

He’s back! None other than “who dat Judge Martin Feldman” is about to streamline and steamroll us again. Times Picayune reporter Rebecca Mowbray has the story:

U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman said today that he will decide on whether to issue a preliminary injunction against the six-month deepwater drilling moratorium by noon Wednesday.

After a hearing in federal court this morning, Feldman said he hopes to have his decision ready by noon Tuesday if possible.

The hearing was part of a lawsuit seeking to lift the deepwater drilling moratorium on an expedited basis, despite an effort by the federal government for a delay until the end of July, two months into the six-month shutdown.

Feldman, “a true blue outcome-oriented judicial activist who led the law where he wanted it to go” in Katrina litigation, definitely knows where he’s going with the decision he will make in this case. Anyone doubting the outcome need only to look at his Financial Disclosure Report:

More:
http://slabbed.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/katrinas-who-dat-judge-martin-feldman-now-dabbling-in-oil/

[aggiesal]

52. You mean this Marty Feldman?

[Judi Lynn]

69. Gotta be the same one. I see he's wearing his nice black robe.

http://img.youtube.com.nyud.net:8090/vi/vIA4A3QRWCE/3.jpg

[geardaddy]

95. lol

you beat me to it.

[Bozita]

21. That belongs on DU's homepage as the top headline!

[Soylent Brice]

22. of course he does. n/t

[louis-t]

23. And there it is....

[City Lights]

24. Our system is so fucked up. nt

[rasputinkhlyst]

25. PAYBACK!

Time for a recall election if LA allows for that.

[No Elephants]

117. If you're referring to Feldman, he's a federal judge.

[Uncle Joe]

27. What a disgrace, he should have removed him self from this case.

If that isn't a conflict of interest, what is?

Thanks for the thread, Judi Lynn.

[Judi Lynn]

35. These clowns sold their souls long ago. If he had a conscience, he wouldn't have done this.

Good to "see" you, Uncle Joe! :hi:

[Uncle Joe]

36. It's good

to "see" you and your Seahorse as well, Judi.:hi:

[Odin2005]

29. Impeach him. Now.

[wordpix]

102. +1 He should have recused himself for conflict of interest; fact he didn't says should be impeached

[Bo]

30. Is this not illegal ? It´s just wrong on so many levels

WTF

[OHdem10]

31. Think about it -- they went to "Oil Country" so secure a judge????

[davidinalameda]

47. the spill is off the coast of Louisiana

this judge sits on the bench in Louisiana, no?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enthusiast]

34. Well, imagine that.

No problem with conflicts of interest. Just like that asshole Scalia.

[OURFOUNDINGFATHERS]

41. We need to drill in safer places

The United States has plenty of oil reserves. We need to start drilling on land where there is plenty to be had. Big block Chevies for all!!!

[pattmarty]

42. Calling Bill O'Reilley....................

[activa8tr]

46. I'm sorry, why do you want Bill around? (I must be dense).

[pattmarty]

54. O'Reilley always is going after what he thinks of as "liberal" judges.

[activa8tr]

127. Oh thanks...I should have been able to figure that out, but I

never pay much attention to what Bill0 says.

[FloridaJudy]

48. If not recusing himself

In a case where his financial interests were at stake isn't grounds for impeachment, I don't know what is.

A blow job? That term has taken on a whole new meaning since the BP disaster! I prefer Clinton's variety: nobody died, and the Gulf wasn't inundated with toxic sludge. Sad that a consensual sex act is grounds for impeachment, and screwing the planet gets a pass from the Right Wing.

[No Elephants]

119. Whether Clinton's bj ultimately caused anyone's death or not is highly debatable.

[fascisthunter]

49. gawd this country is so corrupt

[HCE SuiGeneris]

55. He should have recused himself. That he did not, shows his inability to be impartial.

We need the Supreme Court to step in! Oh, wait... :hangover: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[unkachuck]

56. time to get tough....

"...more than half the federal judges in the districts affected by the BP spill have financial ties to the oil and gas industry."

....the Prez should just put out a statement with an executive order attached stating that he does not feel bound by decisions of corrupt terrorist judges and that he has instructed federal law enforcement, federal agencies and the military to the same....and begin investigations....

....our corrupt judiciary needs to be investigated for terrorist ties, and if any are found, they should be sent to gitmo for rendering....

[donheld]

57. I figured as much

[usregimechange]

60. Senior status now

[LatteLibertine]

61. Surprise! :D

[droidamus2]

62. Republican plan

This is indicative of the Republican/conservative plan all along. Stack the court system with enough conservative/corporatist judges that any case brought against the corporate interests will eventually end up in one of their courts where it can be summarily killed. This is also why when the Republicans have a president in office they scream bloody murder about the Democrats holding up judicial appointments but when the tables are turned they do everything they can to make sure the Democratic president gets as few appointments passed as possible. Personally I don't think it's a good idea for the courts to be 'stacked' in any particular ideological direction as it just leads to these kinds of problems.

[Capitalocracy]

82. That and being able to "shop around" for a favorable jurisdiction. nt

[NewJeffCT]

105. +1

That's been the plan since Reagan was president - we didn't hear a lot about holding up judges in the 90s when Clinton was president, but the Senate Republics jumped through hoops in changing Senate rules in order to hold up Clinton nominees, and to also make sure there were more moderates and/or nobody really liberal.

[No Elephants]

121. Changing Senate rules requires something like a 2/3 vote, so Senate Republics would have needed

lots of help to change any rules.

[NewJeffCT]

124. No, it did not

It was the kind of rule that only need 51 votes - something about how both senators from a state would need to approve of a nominee from their state - so, any state that had 1 Republic senator would be difficult and 2 Republic senators (like a lot of those Mountain states in the 90s) would be almost impossible.

[Bragi]

63. OF COURSE the Judge is tainted and so is the Obama administration

As for what will happen because of this court proceeding, I think it could get real interesting, but not for the reasons most people might expect.

The most interesting possibility is that the administration, in order to make their case for the renewed moratorium, will be expected to table the information they had that justified this moratorium, that showed that ultra-deepwater drilling is unacceptably high-risk.

However, given that a scant few weeks before this blowout occurred, the administration had publicly announced its support for increased deepwater drilling, then it will certainly be interesting to see what information they would now be able to produce to demonstrate the need for a moratorium on this high-risk activity.

So the Obama administration looks to me to be caught on this court proceeding. What it points to is the fact that the administration has been seriously compromised during this whole crisis because of its hugely untimely support for the deepwater drilling, and the industry has no intention of letting the administration off the hook on this.

Quite honestly, as someone who was very disappointed when Obama announced his initial support for increased drilling, I'm not overly surprised that the President has found himself wrong-footed on this crisis right from the get go, or that the industry now intends to hold his feet to the fire to get the moratorium lifted.

How he now intends to prove the sudden need for the moratorium he initially suspended will be interesting indeed.

[barbtries]

72. but the blow out occurred.

and it continues to spew. that should change things imo.

"How he now intends to prove the sudden need for the moratorium he initially suspended will be interesting indeed."

just point to the gulf of mexico.

[No Elephants]

122. And get a different judge.

[AllyCat]

64. Conflict of Interest. The only requirement for holding a government post

I used to say this about W. Now I know that it doesn't matter who is in office anywhere. You just need a solid conflict of interest and the corporations will put you in there.

[Travis_0004]

From doing a quick glance, it looks like oil companies make up about 3% of his portfolio

People own lots of stocks. If he was a major stockholder that would be one thing, but I don't think such a small amount is a huge deal. And as others have said, other judges probably have just as much stock in oil companies.

[Statistical]

67. Exactly. Most people with 401K, IRA, or mutual funds have 3%-7% in oil stocks.

Energy sector makes up 15% of S&P500 so anyone who is invested in a fund that tracks S&P 500 will have 3%+ exposure to oil/gas stocks.

[Hannah Bell]

106. most people don't get over $50k a year in dividends from their holdings.

most people don't even own $50k's worth of stocks.

most people don't even make $50k in income.

[liberal N proud]

65. When this asshole announced when he would make his decision

I knew then there was a payoff.

This is just wrong and the judge should be impeached for not removing him self from the case.

:nuke:

[GreenTea]

73. Did ANYONE not already anticipate this-The judge is also a republican does this surprise anyone too?

[earcandle]

78. That is a serious conflict of interest. We need them replaced. Judges are not allowed to hold

stock or be investors in arena's of which they have oversight
and jurisdiction.

Who will get this fixed?  

[w4rma]

79. He should have recused himself. Impeach. (nt)

[Capitalocracy]

81. Least surprising headline ever.

[Judi Lynn]

83. Truthout: The Dead Hand of Ronald Reagan Rises in the Gulf

The Dead Hand of Ronald Reagan Rises in the Gulf
Tuesday 22 June 2010

by: Dave Lindorff | This Can't Be Happening | Op-Ed

As the BP well in the Gulf of Mexico continues to spew out ever more toxic oil and methane into the sea, and as floating toxic sludge, by the millions of gallons, starts destroying the wetlands across the American Southeast, the dead hand of President Ronald Reagan is at work, making sure nothing is done to prevent yet another such disaster from occurring.

The name of that dead hand is Martin Leach-Cross Feldman, a federal judge in Louisiana, a part of the notoriously right-wing Fifth Circuit.

Feldman, appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan and approved by the Republican-led Senate in 1983, has been a craven supporter of corporations over the public interest for years. In the wake of the Katrina disaster in New Orleans, for example, the judge ruled against homeowners who tried to bring a racketeering case against Clipper Estates, the corporate owner of their housing development, claiming that the company had stolen money it collected from them allegedly for repairs, for the owner’s personal use. Feldman ruled that homeowners had no standing to sue.

Now, using classic Reaganesque logic (remember our senile ex-president’s mocking argument to environmentalist that because trees release carbon dioxide at night, they must be “polluters”?), Judge Feldman has issued a temporary restraining order against the White House’s six-month freeze on offshore drilling. His rationale for overturning the moratorium on drilling: The government hadn’t provided an adequate justification for it.

More:
http://www.truth-out.org/the-dead-hand-ronald-reagan-rises-gulf60699

[FlyByNight]

85. I. Am. Shocked.

:sarcasm:

[Change Happens]

88. Of and he is a Republican too.................nt

[felinetta]

89. Nothing to be concerned about here. Just move on. This judge is a wanker for not recusing himself.

[sulphurdunn]

90. Who cares about some conflicted judge

ruling against a moratorium on deep water oil wells over legal hair splitting? There are enough federally listed threatened and endangered species in the Gulf to justify trumping this decision and closing down all oil drilling permanently under the Endangered Species Act. But that won't happen because this ruling gives President Obama the "why we won't have a public option" cover he's looking for to resume business as usual as soon as possible. Don't expect a strong White House challenge to it.

[happygoluckytoyou]

91. got to get up pretty OILY in the morning to be a slimy judge who didnt take himself off the decision

[Juan_de_la_Dem]

92. No surprise

[Dappleganger]

93. It's very true, always always always follow the money.

I predict this will be overturned, post haste.

[Evasporque]

94. "Take a little judge and put him in your pocket...."

"save him for a rainy day..."

[EnviroBat]

96. IMPEACH THAT F*&^KING BASTARD!!!

These are the kinds of criminals we are dealing with now, and some of them are judges!

[KansDem]

99. Its the "Reagan Legacy"

First, the CorpoCongress lines up at the trough, then the POTUS and VPOTUS. Now the fucking judicial system.

"Public Service" has become an oxymoron; they're all on the take...

We deserve better than these crooks and liars.

[wordpix]

103. Before he's impeached, first step is getting ruling thrown out due to conflict of interest

I'm no lawyer but seems to me this ruling should not be adhered to on this issue alone.

[deconstruct911]

114. Stop the drilling

build more pipelines to northern Canada and destroy and contaminate up there.

[Hubert Flottz]

116. I think the judge might belong in jail in that case...

[dyingnumbers]

123. Judicial Watch

...probably the only useful resource in this entire thread.

[JohnWxy]

125. should have recused himself.

[Psephos]

128. Turns out the judge sold his oil service co. stocks well before the BP spill.

According to this piece...

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/buzz/latest-buzz/10729-gulf-oil-moratorium-judge-threatened

Much of the sensational reporting on Feldman’s investments was based on outdated information. The Judge was blasted for owning stock in Transocean, Ltd and Halliburton, two of the major companies involved in the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Feldman owned those stocks in 2008; however, he sold those shares long before issuing his ruling this week. In fact, this updated information will be released in the next report on his stock holdings.

If Feldman held financial interests in any of companies involved in the lawsuit or the Deepwater Horizon rig, he would not have been allowed the take the case. The 5th District Court uses a sophisticated computer system to check whether judges have a conflict of interest in any legal proceeding. This system automatically determines whether a judge needs to be recused from a particular case. In this lawsuit, Feldman was allowed to take the case because he did not own any stock related to the parties involved.

<snip>

Make of it what you will.