(Breaking news)
Now that a federal judge has issued a ruling against the 6-month moratorium on oil drilling, I have this reaction: Smart move.
Of course, the Obama administration will file an immediate appeal and normally I take a dim view of one man or woman (a judge) deciding that what the President of the US wants to do is unlawful, but in this case, I think it was the right decision.
Somewhere in our mass of complex laws, there has to be something in there that prevents a capricious decree by the government that will immediately shut down thousands of jobs and have such a serious impact on the economy of a particular region. That is the case here. A 6-month moratorium on oil drilling not only drives up prices ant the pump and increases our dependence on foreign oil, but it results in the loss of thousands of jobs that may not come back so easily. If oil workers have to relocate as many will, that impacts the local economy of the Gulf Coast as well. One anecdote I heard yesterday involves an American woman married to an Australian oil worker who now has to leave the country. The whole family is going back to Australia, which impacts all the businesses and stores where they do their shopping.
Like it or not, we still need oil and we have to find our own sources lest we continue to depend on countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela just to mention two. I really don't think Obama and his green, clean advisers really grasp the consequences of this moratorium-or they don't care.
Of course, the BP disaster should lead to increased safety measures for oil workers and to lesson the chances of another similar disaster. Keep in mind that if we were able to drill closer to shore or in Alaska, this disaster probably would have been cleaned up and repaired by now. Ask yourselves why we are drilling in deep waters (which makes the repair very difficult) then ask the environmental lobby for the answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"normally I take a dim view of one man or woman (a judge) deciding that what the President of the US wants to do is unlawful, but in this case, I think it was the right decision."
In other words:
"I'm completely AGAINST judicial activism... unless it aligns with my personal views!"
Of course. I'll save this little gem for the next time you go on whining about judges "legislating from the bench."
It's hardly hypocritical Lance because I acknowledged it.
That wasn't me. But acknowledging one's own hypocrisy doesn't somehow make it not hypocrisy!
Here's another perspective:
Activist Judiciary!
It may well be a smart move, but this judge's decision rests on no legal principle or jurisdictional question. It rests on the judge's own view of whether the decision is wise or economically sound.
Constitutional law, case law, and legislation, all bind the court to show considerable deference to the president and the Department of Interior on a decision like this.
I suspect this will be overturned in short order, on those very grounds.
Gary's prose does essentially boil down to, 'because I agree with the judge's reasoning and the outcome, I am in this case unconcerned with the obvious judicial activism I have acknowledged.'
Post a Comment