Bigdogg;407531 wrote:There is no doubt that FFT is a smart guy and knows his job. The problem I have with him is his condescending attitude. He reminds me of a fellow my brother, who is also a Northwestern grad attorney, opposed in an antitrust case. Evidently this New York attorney with his Armani suit wanted to save my brother and his client all the embarrassment of going to trial and getting his ass kicked in court by accepting a smaller settlement. Needless to say his taste in clothing was much better then his trial skills.

For what it's worth, I promise I'm a nicer/more humble person than comes across in some of my posts. A real problem with being a lawyer is the extreme focus on stating things with precision and following up on minutiae, both of which come off as condescending when read. When someone is 100%, absolutely wrong on a point, there's never any real tactful way to tell them that they're full of crap.

What FFT has posted on this political forum has been accurate and factual. Policies are the result of compromise or at least before the last election use to be. EPAct '05 could have included more safeguards, the federal government and BP could have done their jobs better to enforce existing safety standards and regulations.

What needs to happen now is we need to learn from the mistakes and go on. We still need to drill in places that are not easy to get to and environmentally risky. We also need to continue reduce our dependency on oil and seek out a variety of alternatives.

I agree with you on this. I tend to be more on the anti-drilling/pro-renewable side of the spectrum, but any move to reduce our reliance on foreign oil necessarily will entail offshore drilling here in the states. At the end of the day, it's a political decision to gauge the potential for catastrophic risk and balance that against the rewards of jobs created and less volatile fossil fuel prices. I'm generally content with letting our political representatives hash out a compromise, but it just seems to be bad faith to revisit compromise solutions and focus on only one side of the equation.

The problem, as I see it, is that there are too many politicians who act (quite rationally) to be reelected. This means there's always a conflict between (1) doing what is best for the country and (2) doing what maximizes their chances of reelection--pandering to their base.

KnightRyder wrote: you make me laugh . you think because you are paper pushing attorney that you actually know something. but i also work in the oil industry, at a lower level . so i see every day how regulations are legally broke. how the industry standards were relaxed in the bush cheney era of power. unless you have been an the ground level you wouldnt know. but i have seen it personally. i seen it done every day all day. sp dont tell me about all your credentials. like my cousin who is also a attorney once said. " i thought all attoneys were whores, then i became one and found out its true". i know when it was deregulated because thats when business practices changed in a major way. testing and inspection of material used in drilling that was done no longer had to be done. did you know that? so tell me more, like you actually got busy and got your hands dirty out in the field. because i have.

Like I've said on here a thousand times, my experience is on the electric side, and I only tangentially work with oil & gas. I'm much more familiar with public utilities/renewable generation development. I'm not claiming expertise on the ground wrt oil. I am telling you what our current regulatory structures are. Your original assertion was legal (i.e. that EPAct '05 was anti-environment and pro-oil), not factual--I have no idea if, on the ground, siting/permitting restrictions are more lax than they were. I do know that, on the legal/regulatory level, EPAct '05 was NOT pro-oil and anti-environment.

The 5th Circuit just affirmed the trial court and upheld the injunction against the DOI's ban as arbitrary/capricious/speculative. I'm sure this will be appealed to SCOTUS, but so far, it looks like the trial court got it right.

Gee, I'd think if the judge issuing the injunction were so overtly biased and tainted -- overturning his ruling would have been a slam dunk.

Apparently not.

I didn't know why the BHO Administration would waste time and taxpayer dollars to send it to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS will likely uphold the lower court decisions.

Wait a minute...I forgot. It's the BHO Administration we're talking about. Wasting court time and taxpayer dollars means squat.

fan_from_texas;417647 wrote:The 5th Circuit just affirmed the trial court and upheld the injunction against the DOI's ban as arbitrary/capricious/speculative. I'm sure this will be appealed to SCOTUS, but so far, it looks like the trial court got it right.

a panel made up of judges as corrupt as feldman
http://www.afj.org/about-afj/press/fifth_circuit_judges_report.pdf

^^^Corrupt or not they still made the correct call. And so will SCOTUS if it goes that far up the food chain.

hardly, a group of bought off judge allowing greedy corporations to continue a obviously dangerous action. They have shown that they are not prepared for the consequences of their catastrophes.

isadore;420320 wrote:a panel made up of judges as corrupt as feldman
http://www.afj.org/about-afj/press/fifth_circuit_judges_report.pdf

Give me a break. So a number of judges in the 5th Circuit have decided cases involving oil, or own energy assets, and you believe that means they're corrupt. It's because of people like you that I'm glad we nominate federal judges, rather than voting for them.

fan_from_texas;420881 wrote:Give me a break. So a number of judges in the 5th Circuit have decided cases involving oil, or own energy assets, and you believe that means they're corrupt. It's because of people like you that I'm glad we nominate federal judges, rather than voting for them.

Because of lawyer and judges like you and these two who supplied the majority to end the moratorium people lose faith in our justice system. We see it co opted by corporate funds. Their lobbyists and money corrupt the nomination process. The problem with the election of judges is not voters like me but in corporate corruption of judges as can be seen in caperton v. massey coal co. The corporations corrupt the government and the electoral process.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/08/AR2009060801366.html
Judge Edwin Smith
He described his practice as “consist[ing] of working with groups of attorneys in various law firms representing major oil companies in lawsuits regarding the interpretation and enforcement of United States Department of Energy price and allocation regulations.”13 In three out of the ten cases Judge Smith described as being the most significant of his career, he defended big oil companies Dorchester Gas Producing Co. v. Dept. of Energy15: From 1979 to 1984, Judge Smith represented Exxon in a declaratory judgment action brought by several major petroleum refiners, including Exxon, Texaco, Phillips, Mobil, and Standard Oil, challenging natural gas liquids price egulations promulgated by the Department of Energy under the Emergency PetroleumAllocation Act of 1973 (EPAA). Dougherty v. Continental Oil Co16: Judge Smith represented Continental Oil Company (Conoco) in appealing an antitrust case brought by Conoco commission agents.
Amoco Production Co. v. Dept. of Energy17: Judge Smith represented Exxon and Sun Oil
Company in a declaratory judgment action brought by numerous oil companies challenging Department of Energy regulations relating to natural gas liquids

Judge William Eugene Davis
During his tenure as a private litigator,
Judge Davis often represented major offshore drilling and oil companies in private suits.25
Notable examples include:
• Istre v. Diamond M. Drilling Co.26: In this case, Judge Davis represented Diamond Drilling Company against a negligence claim under the Jones Act brought by a crew member injured on a submersible drilling barge.
Dearborn Marine Serv. Inc., v. Chambers & Kennedy27: This case involved a horrific explosion on an unmanned oil collection and storage platform in the Gulf of Mexico owned by Chambers& Kennedy (C&K). C&K had been ordered to make certain repairs on the barge to bring it into compliance with pollution and safety regulations. The company hired a contractor to make the repairs and in the course of the repair, there was a massive on-platform fire that killed workers. One of the employees of the contractor sued the contractor and C&K. Judge Davis represented C&K in the ensuing wrongful death and negligence suit.
Louviere v. Shell Oil Co.28: Judge Davis represented Texsteam Corporation in a civil suit against it and other companies including Shell Oil for damages arising out of a hot water heater explosion within the living quarters of a stationary drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2008, Judge Davis had financial investments in oil and energy companies totaling $0 -
$30,000 in annual gross value.29 He had investments in Progress Energy Inc., a Fortune 500 company headquartered in Raleigh, NC providing electricity to customers in Carolina and Florida; Alabama Power, a subsidiary of Southern Company providing electrical services in Alabama; and Edge Petroleum, a Houston-based oil and natural gas company with onshore drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico.30 Additionally, in 2004, 2006, 2007, and 2008, Judge Davis attended the same seminar as Judge
Smith and Davis attended "junkets for judges" sponsored by big oil companies like Exxon-Mobil. The junkets promoted "free-market environmentalism" and criticized the use of government regulation. The junkets also included reimbursed food, travel, and lodging in addition to free golf and horseback riding. Two of the judged on the panel actually worked for oil companies as litigators before they were appointed to the federal bench. Finally the third judge did not attend any junkets, but he does hold over $300,000 in oil investments.

http://www.afj.org/about-afj/press/fifth_circuit_judges_report.pdf

isadore;421011 wrote:Because of lawyer and judges like you and these two who supplied the majority to end the moratorium people lose faith in our justice system. We see it co opted by corporate funds. Their lobbyists and money corrupt the nomination process. The problem with the election of judges is not voters like me but in corporate corruption of judges as can be seen in caperton v. massey coal co. The corporations corrupt the government and the electoral process.

You realize that the Massey Coal case involved elected state judges, not appointed federal judges, right? That supports the point I'm making--individual voters who only see things in R/D terms overly-politicize the process and create drama. The vast majority of issues a court hears have nothing to do with politics. E.g., the Chevron doctrine, which is one of SCOTUS' biggest decisions in the past 30 years, dealing with agency deference. It's a crucial issue, but it's non-political inasmuch as it isn't clear where Rs/Ds would line up on it. Most cases are like that.

You would be hard-pressed to find an atty in the 5th Circuit with the qualifications to be a federal judge who doesn't have some sort of tie (direct or indirect) to the energy industry. Heck, you'd be hard-pressed to find a person in the 5th Circuit who doesn't have any tie to the energy industry. It's like complaining about any judge in the 6th Circuit who has a tie to manufacturing. Good luck finding someone who's been an atty in Detroit for 30 years who hasn't been involved with the auto industry at some point. That doesn't mean they're biased; it's means they're in a region dominated by one industry.

[Edit]
In addition, simply representing a company on an issue doesn't mean you agree with them. That's like assuming that a doctor who treats a patient agrees with the patient's views on everything. Attys represents clients, not causes. While I'm not naive enough to think all attys are entirely detached and unbiased with regard to their cases, I'm quite certain that many attys represent clients on various issues where they disagree with the client--such zealous advocacy is required by bar rules.

fan_from_texas;421141 wrote:While I'm not naive enough to think all attys are entirely detached and unbiased with regard to their cases, I'm quite certain that many attys represent clients on various issues where they disagree with the client--such zealous advocacy is required by bar rules.

I would hope this applies to criminal defense lawyers much of the time.

KnightRyder;407530 wrote:but bowing down to big oil is ok?

Even the governors from the states are in agreement with the ruling and have asked Obama to stop this nonsense. This is putting thousands of people out of work, but I guess that's what you are wishing for then???

fan_from_texas;421141 wrote:You realize that the Massey Coal case involved elected state judges, not appointed federal judges, right? That supports the point I'm making--individual voters who only see things in R/D terms overly-politicize the process and create drama. The vast majority of issues a court hears have nothing to do with politics. E.g., the Chevron doctrine, which is one of SCOTUS' biggest decisions in the past 30 years, dealing with agency deference. It's a crucial issue, but it's non-political inasmuch as it isn't clear where Rs/Ds would line up on it. Most cases are like that.

You would be hard-pressed to find an atty in the 5th Circuit with the qualifications to be a federal judge who doesn't have some sort of tie (direct or indirect) to the energy industry. Heck, you'd be hard-pressed to find a person in the 5th Circuit who doesn't have any tie to the energy industry. It's like complaining about any judge in the 6th Circuit who has a tie to manufacturing. Good luck finding someone who's been an atty in Detroit for 30 years who hasn't been involved with the auto industry at some point. That doesn't mean they're biased; it's means they're in a region dominated by one industry.

[Edit]
In addition, simply representing a company on an issue doesn't mean you agree with them. That's like assuming that a doctor who treats a patient agrees with the patient's views on everything. Attys represents clients, not causes. While I'm not naive enough to think all attys are entirely detached and unbiased with regard to their cases, I'm quite certain that many attys represent clients on various issues where they disagree with the client--such zealous advocacy is required by bar rules.

isadore wrote:Because of lawyer and judges like you and these two who supplied the majority to end the moratorium people lose faith in our justice system. We see it co opted by corporate funds. Their lobbyists and money corrupt the nomination process. The problem with the election of judges is not voters like me but in corporate corruption of judges as can be seen in caperton v. massey coal co. The corporations corrupt the government and the electoral process.

I am quite aware that the Caperton decision involved the elected state judges. You condemned state election of judges because I as a voter would have a say in the selection process. As I write in my statement the problem with election of judges is not voter participation, but as the caperton case showed corporate interference. A problem also found with their corruption of the appointment process of federal judges.
Your attitude toward the electorate is quite elitist and self serving. Myself and almost all voters do not have the extensive knowledge of the legal system that a trained professional like yourself has. BUT every decision made by the court is political.
The recent decisions limiting “Chevron deference” emasculate federal agencies that are there to protect us from corporate abuse whether it be dangerous drilling in the gulf, the actions of the EEOC to provide job protection or the SEC to protect investors. They endanger the job security, investments and environment of the voters. Something they might be very interested in, political to them.
Lawyers chose who they represent. If a person or an action is repugnant to them, they do not have to take the case. Smith took several cases representing the oil companies against government regulation. In two different incidents Davis represented the oil companies against the families of workers killed on platform fires. The company were sued for wrongful death and negligence. After defending companies that killed their workers, he now makes a legal decision to endanger more unnecessarily.
I am sure you will repeat your argument about them having no choice in clients. Well as federal judges they in 2004, 20005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 attended junkets paid for by the oil companies. The junkets promoted “free market environmentalism “ and criticized government regulation. The junkets also included reimbursed food, travel, and lodging in addition to free golf and horseback riding. Fan from texas, you might defend a NAMBLA member who molest children because you are force to. But then do you go on one of their “junkets.”
These judges were in the pocket of the oil industry. I know they would never allow it, but the correct action should have been a change of venue from this thoroughly corrupted appeals court.
http://www.afj.org/about-afj/press/fifth_circuit_judges_report.pdf

even though this ban has been blocked, no rigs are running and only 1 permit has been submitted. until the DOI gives up the fight to ban it (even if they aren't winning, as is the case now), very little will be done in the GOM. that is my opinion at least.