Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Farmer77

Fed Court Rejects Admins end to methane rule

7 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Farmer77

Hey some good news! 

In 'Tremendous Victory for Taxpayers, Public Health, and Planet,' Federal Court Rejects Trump Admin.'s Attempt to Suspend Methane Rule

 

Quote

A court has once again rejected the Trump administration's effort to suspend an Obama-era rule aimed at reducing releases of methane from oil and gas operations on federal and tribal land.

"The decision," writes Meleah Geertsma, a senior attorney with NRDC, "once again sends a message to this administration that it will not get away with illegal handouts to industry, at the expense of Americans' health and the environment."

The latest rebuke to the attempt to derail the Bureau of Land Management's Waste Prevention Rule was delivered late Thursday by the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California in response to suits filed by a number of environmental groups, as well as the states of California and New Mexico over the rule suspension.

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
ChaosRose

Well, we all know why he wants to do away with it. I mean...all that fast food he's eating must make him mighty gassy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney

They've always done a good job of screwing up tribal lands. Those poor people that have to live next to uranium spoils can't move......

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Without going into any of this actual subject, of which I know little about, I'd just like to say how absolutely scary it is how courts have taken the roll of all three branches of government. Is it not their job to uphold the law? In this situation there was no law. Thanks to a single judge there is now a new law. Looking at the big picture, courts are totally out of freaking control. They have become literal dictators.

How can they uphold a law that doesn't exist? Again that's not to say whether this particular ruling is good or bad. Are people really comfortable with the idea that courts are creating and enforcing legislation that doesn't exist? An "0bama area rule" is not a law, especially to this administration, or any administration that follows after. I think there are a whole lot of judges, especially in the lower courts that need to be held responsible when they over step their power.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChaosRose
4 hours ago, Piney said:

They've always done a good job of screwing up tribal lands. Those poor people that have to live next to uranium spoils can't move......

Talk about getting the **** end of the stick. 

Over..and over...and over...and over...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

I'm somewhat puzzled. This is a government department rule ? Why are the courts even involved ? What is the difference between a "rule" and a "law" in this context ? 

Interesting as well is that the judge in this case is an Obama supporter (he was a fund-raiser for the various Obama campaigns), and it was Obama who first introduced this "rule". 

On the face of it, this seems like a sensible decision, as far as the environment is concerned. However, the method by which the decision was rendered - through a court - seems very odd ? 

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
6 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Without going into any of this actual subject, of which I know little about, I'd just like to say how absolutely scary it is how courts have taken the roll of all three branches of government. Is it not their job to uphold the law? In this situation there was no law. Thanks to a single judge there is now a new law. Looking at the big picture, courts are totally out of freaking control. They have become literal dictators.

I get why you could see it that way but in reality they are standing in the way of a dictatorship. This is exactly what checks and balances means. 

 

3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

On the face of it, this seems like a sensible decision, as far as the environment is concerned. However, the method by which the decision was rendered - through a court - seems very odd ? 

Maybe it would help if you replace the word rule with regulation. That's what this was, an attempt at deregulation. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.