Embargo Off!

[Gaspar]

Master Blaster's (President Obama's) embargo on domestic deep water oil has been lifted by a federal judge.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-22/u-s-deepwater-oil-drilling-ban-lifted-today-by-new-orleans-federal-judge.html

A New Orleans federal judge lifted the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling imposed by President Barack Obama following the largest oil spill in U.S. history. Shares of drilling services companies jumped on the news.

Unfortunately several deep water rigs have already left the gulf for foreign waters.

[custosnox]

I'm still trying to find the section of the constitution that gives the president the power to empose such a ban.

[we vs us]

I'm still trying to find the section of the constitution that gives the president the power to empose such a ban.

I'm betting it's interstate commerce.

[Gaspar]

I'm still trying to find the section of the constitution that gives the president the power to empose such a ban.

Don't bother.

Now the admin is going to battle Arizona AND Louisiana.  Texas will be next.

This constitution thing is really hard on President Obama.

[custosnox]

I'm betting it's interstate commerce.

Interstate commerce falls under the purvey of congress. 

[we vs us]

Interstate commerce falls under the purvey of congress. 

Maybe it's a "security" issue?  I don't know but I can see several avenues in which it's feasible. 

[nathanm]

I'm betting it's interstate commerce.

I'm betting it has more to do with the fact that they're drilling on government lands (or in this case, in government waters), so the government gets to call the shots. Same way it gets to set fishing quotas.

Congress delegated that power to the executive.

Your constitutionality canard would make sense if the moratorium applied to wells on private land.

[Gaspar]

I'm betting it has more to do with the fact that they're drilling on government lands (or in this case, in government waters), so the government gets to call the shots. Same way it gets to set fishing quotas.

Congress delegated that power to the executive.

Your constitutionality canard would make sense if the moratorium applied to wells on private land.

You may be right.  I know nothing about maritime law, but federal land does fall under the executive. 

Big O's in control. Embargo on!

[Gaspar]

It seems that the judge's ruling is not simply based on Obama's jurisdiction to impose the ban, but on information that contradicts what the administration said.  Apparently the administration claimed that a ban was recommended by The National Academy of Engineering. Apparently that is not true.  They must have just misspoke.

Those experts from the National Academy of Engineering have said they don't support the blanket ban.

"Much to the government's discomfort and this Court's uneasiness, the summary also states that 'the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.' As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading," Judge Feldman said in his 22-page ruling.

When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.

[custosnox]

I'm betting it has more to do with the fact that they're drilling on government lands (or in this case, in government waters), so the government gets to call the shots. Same way it gets to set fishing quotas.

Congress delegated that power to the executive.

Your constitutionality canard would make sense if the moratorium applied to wells on private land.

Really?  I would think that in order for it to be enforcable, it would have to be law, and to be law it takes congress.  But there are so many of these little "extras" that have been written into law that give so many agencies power beyond the original constitution that I just can't keep track.  Just never would have thought this as an "internal procedure" type thing.  Regardless, seems pretty reckless (economically) to try and shut them all down anyhow.

[we vs us]

Really?  I would think that in order for it to be enforcable, it would have to be law, and to be law it takes congress.  But there are so many of these little "extras" that have been written into law that give so many agencies power beyond the original constitution that I just can't keep track.  Just never would have thought this as an "internal procedure" type thing.  Regardless, seems pretty reckless (economically) to try and shut them all down anyhow.

Executive orders have the strength of law (as a for-instance), though for a limited amount of time. 

[guido911]

Has anyone here bother reading the opinion before guessing how the president has this authority? 

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

[nathanm]

Really?  I would think that in order for it to be enforcable, it would have to be law, and to be law it takes congress.  But there are so many of these little "extras" that have been written into law that give so many agencies power beyond the original constitution that I just can't keep track.  Just never would have thought this as an "internal procedure" type thing.  Regardless, seems pretty reckless (economically) to try and shut them all down anyhow.

They're not "all shut down." Something like 33 platforms in the GoM are/were restricted from drilling. Production continues apace from completed wells. Drilling continues in the rest of the country on land and in shallow water.

It's like the princess and the pea. Well, really it's Republicans lashing out at Obama for anything they can so as to attempt to make something stick between now and the midterms. It's gotten louder in recent days after Joe Barton said what was on all of their minds (and they were speaking and writing0 until Barton went off about it at the hearing.

But hey, if they want to keep running as the friend of big oil fouling our shores, more power to 'em.

Guido, aren't decisions of executive agency held to an absurdly low standard of review? Like almost no review at all. (I forget the term of art, extreme deference maybe?) If so, how can the judge possibly have found a substantial likelihood of the plaintiff prevailing at trial?

..reading..

Oh, nice, the judge decided to trot out an already debunked smear as part of his justification.

Also, it turns out he owns stock in some drilling companies. Ahh, the appearance of impropriety in the afternoon.

And he somehow glosses over the reasoning given in the Secretary's report, opining that the Secretary provided no justification. Very interesting.

[guido911]

They're not "all shut down." Something like 33 platforms in the GoM are/were restricted from drilling. Production continues apace from completed wells. Drilling continues in the rest of the country on land and in shallow water.

It's like the princess and the pea. Well, really it's Republicans lashing out at Obama for anything they can so as to attempt to make something stick between now and the midterms. It's gotten louder in recent days after Joe Barton said what was on all of their minds (and they were speaking and writing0 until Barton went off about it at the hearing.

But hey, if they want to keep running as the friend of big oil fouling our shores, more power to 'em.

Guido, aren't decisions of executive agency held to an absurdly low standard of review? Like almost no review at all. (I forget the term of art, extreme deference maybe?) If so, how can the judge possibly have found a substantial likelihood of the plaintiff prevailing at trial?

..reading..

Oh, nice, the judge decided to trot out an already debunked smear as part of his justification.

Also, it turns out he owns stock in some drilling companies. Ahh, the appearance of impropriety in the afternoon.

And he somehow glosses over the reasoning given in the Secretary's report, opining that the Secretary provided no justification. Very interesting.

Executive agencies' rule-making is reviewed by courts under the arbitrary and capricious standard, which is a fairly high standard.  As a note for those really interested in administrative law, this opinion is very informative as to the application of the aforementioned standard and the requisite proof required for a preliminary injunction. Also, just as an fyi, the fifth circuit's (where the government appeal will go) view is very similar to our federal appellate circuit.

Just so I am clear, I am not taking the plaintiffs or the government's side on this issue--just not that informed on all the factual issues although to be honest at first blush I thought the ban was a bit tough.

[nathanm]

at first blush I thought the ban was a bit tough.

I thought so, too, until Obama said that the moratorium would be lifted early if the panel making recommendations on better safety procedures and more effective regulation completed its task prior to the six months being up.  That and I realized it only applied to wells drilled in over 500 feet of water. It's a much more limited moratorium than the judge gives it credit for.

I can't say whether the judge was just very convinced by the immediate economic harm argument or whether the Government didn't come up with the requisite records of the reasoning behind the moratorium quickly enough.