Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Judge Who Ruled Against Offshore Drilling Moratorium Invests in Oil Industry
Today, Judge Martin Feldman, a U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sided with a drilling company which had argued that the Obama administration’s blanket, 6-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico was illegal. The drilling company, Hornbeck Offshore Services of Covington, LA, claimed financial distress from the imposition of the moratorium. In the ruling handed down this afternoon, Judge Feldman agreed, writing that the administration made an “arbitrary and capricious” decision that would have an “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.” Like many judges presiding in the Gulf region, Feldman owns lots of energy stocks, including Transocean, Halliburton, and two of BP’s largest U.S. private shareholders — BlackRock (7.1%) and JP Morgan Chase (28.3%). Here’s a list of Feldman’s income in 2008 (amounts listed unless under $1,000):
BlackRock
($12000- $36000)
Ocean Energy ($1000 –
$2500)
NGP Capital Resources ($1000 –
$2500)
Quicksilver Resources ($5000 –
$15000)
Hercules
Offshore ($6000 – $17500)
Provident Energy
Peabody Energy
PenGrowth Energy
RPC Inc
Atlas Energy
Resources
Parker Drilling
TXCO Resources
EV Energy Partners
Rowan
Companies
BPZ Resources
El Paso Corp
KBR Inc
Chesapeake Energy
ATP Oil & Gas
In his opinion today, Feldman wrote, “Oil and gas production is quite simply elemental to Gulf communities.” Indeed, it is so elemental that the justice system is invested in the oil and gas industry. As TP’s Ian Millhiser has written, “Industry ties among federal judges are so widespread that they are beginning to endanger the courts’ ability to conduct routine business. Last month, so many members of the right-wing Fifth Circuit were forced to recuse themselves from an appeal against various energy and chemical companies that there weren’t enough untainted judges left to allow the court to hear the case.”
47 Comments so far
Show AllIf ownership of energy stocks makes one judge unfit to rule on an energy case, then probably most of them are unfit. I am not disagreeing with the idea that Feldman had a conflict of interest; I think most Federal judges probably have that same conflict.
Why is it that anyone who rules against a progressivist's position immediately comes under a personal attack. I am confident that an opposite ruling would have been hailed by all in the mainstream media. The Chicago tactics of personal attacks have become the knee-jerk reaction of the political left.
This has nothing to do with favoring "big oil". If you own mutual funds, then you own "big oil" stocks. Big Oil doesn't pay fines or taxes. They collect them from their customers. Your passion clouds all reason. This ruling was about the limits of government. Moratoriums or any other government interference in free enterprise is a violation of the rights of private citizens. This is why we have courts and juries instead of enlightened rulers. We have rights whether we own oil companies or nothing at all. With the policies of this present regime, we will soon all be a part of the latter classification.
If not the government, who then has the right to try to limit the destruction the capitalist terrorist organizations are doing to the country.
Protecting the private citizens's right to life is more important than giving "free enterprise" the freedom to destroy the ability of our planet to support life.
USDiz2 said:
"Why is it that anyone who rules against a progressivist's position immediately comes under a personal attack."
The fact that you have the gall to ask this question in the face of the fact that this judge benefits financially for ruling for the oil companies is exactly what's wrong with this country.
Your morals and manners are corrupt as the founding fathers used to say.
You don't live in Louisiana but you value your personal greed over the rights of the poor who live there and their rights to fish and eat on their property. The USA was founded above all, on the rights to defend the land-holding individual citizen, not Global Corporations like the British East India Company.
Your lies about the consumer only being the payer of any oil fines or tax is a sham too. In the face of 200 billion dollar profits per quarter you're going to pass the tax on to the consumer instead of the CEO. You are sick sir. We once threw tea in the harbor to rid ourselves of the tyranny of big monopolies like BP. Now 235 years later, they are throwing oil into our water to spite us.
You said:
"This is why we have courts and juries instead of enlightened rulers"
Hey Mr Scholar, there is no jury on the supreme court. Only enlightened judges who own oil stock.
TJ
Nice rebuttal, TJ. The guy certainly is addled, but is nonetheless very representative of the national malaise.
Well said, TJ.
Again, thanks for making my arguement. You personal attack is confirmation that you do not have the ability to address the greater issues.
Well said, TJ! Something`s wrong with this clown. Completely out to lunch. America`s going down the tubes (in every sense of the word) because of imbeciles like USDiz2. So sad we can`t get a moratorium on stupidity...
Your argument that "Big Oil doesn't pay fines or taxes. They collect them from their customers" is so obviously ridiculous it is laughable.
If corporate fines and taxes are only paid by the consumer, why do corporations dedicate themselves so fiercely to eliminating corporate fines and taxes?
Because fines and taxes ARE paid by the corporations. The same idiotic "logic" can be applied to every cost imposed on every player in the entire economy - they don't really pay the cost, they simply pass it on. Nonsense. Costs have costs.
Your reason is clouded by your passionate hatred for democracy.
I humbly acknowledge that the phrase is literal. Corporations do pay taxes and fines. My point is that these will largely become the "cost of doing business". These oil companies also work very hard to make sure that they stay in business by passing along those costs to the gas pumpaholics (you and me). You must admit the cost of the clean-up, more regulatory oversight, etc. will directly increase the cost of their petroleum products.
And, pointing out a conflict of interest is not a "personal attack," it is the foundation of responsible journalism. Attention to all conflicts of interest should be second nature for every citizen.
The way you twist logic to attack the practice of democracy is standard tactics for the "big lie" corporatists who dominate this society.
Timing is everything. The information about the judge's financial holdings are open documents, which were available before the ruling. That information was not reported when the case went before the judge... it was quickly pointed out after he ruled correctly that the moratorium was illegal. The mainstream media released the information which was at the ready. I do agree that controversy sells newspapers.
I don't know if you're getting paid to shill for BP, or if perhaps you're just a ditto head unable to follow normal reasoning. There was no reason to 'research' the judges financial holdings prior to the ruling, ergo, nobody really cared. Once such an egregious ruling was handed down it would have been incompetent NOT to have investigated to see if there was a quid pro quo in this case. This case exemplifies to the world that we have the best judicial system that money CAN buy.
BP was Obama's favorite oil company. They supported his cap and trade legislative efforts. They were given waivers by the Obama regime to speed up the operation of this well. They conspired to run the coal industry out of existence. In return the green community was heaping accolades on BP for being a model to the rest of the evil capitalist system. No I am not a friend of BP. However, It is an amazing chain of coincidences (i.e. the perfect SNAFU), that allowed this well to blow.
We agree on the corrupt nature of the judiciary.
Thanks for not attacking my parents. 30
The "chain of coincidences" would most likely be identical under any administration. If you haven't noticed, these huge corporations donate to both sides. If they feel it's going to be a democratic year, they'll donate more to that party and vice versa. All of the major polluters support cap and trade, since they feel they can buy their way to doing business as usual and not invest in cleaner technology.
Yes, I'm over 50, (in my 60's actually) and was a part time N.R. My name, and my wife's are on the paperwork for a couple 501C(3)/501C(4) non-profits initiated by Ralph. He is one of the finest individuals I have had the good fortune to meet and chat with. Sorry if my "attacks" were personal, I do know better, honestly.
This situation in the Gulf is on one hand unifying, but on the other polarizing. Protecting the environment should not be a partisan issue. Teddy Roosevelt, 'bout as conservative as they came, was an environmentalist. But the issue of corporations vs government has become a very polarizing debate. The GOP (and I am a member of that group) has in my opinion abandoned a large segment of it's traditional base (the family farmer) in favor of supporting large corporations. "The business of government is business, the business of big government is big business" as I was taught at the kitchen table. I remain a Republican because I'd like to try to get the group back to traditional values, but without having to have members goose step down Broadway to show their party loyality.
The Belorus secretary to the UN, (before the breakup of the USSR), once told me that the problem with the US is that we do not know how to conduct foreign policy with an enemy. I pondered on this for quite some time and believe that there was truth in his words. In fact, I'd say the same is true with the political parties. We've stopped accepting that we're more alike than different and feel that we have to oppose each other on all fronts. My problem with faux news is that they perpetuate this concept to sell advertising. This agency, above all others tries to polarize the news, to segregate the population by demonizing those who's views differ from their own.
Well... it was an honor to elicit a response from someone of your obvious ability and experience. I must admit to agreeing with your intent and many of your observations about the scope of the corruption and polarization. This present global economic condition is somewhat akin to the mutually assured destruction /absence of war policy, which I thought was behind us.
The media has become a farce.
I do disagree with the "not knowing how to negotiate with our enemies" idea. Perhaps you meant ideological rivals. We can negotiate with the competition, but not the enemies. For me, the Obama regime represents a real and present danger to my country. We are to defend our country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I'm always irritated by foreigners who lecture me on what is wrong with the USA... then they move here and immediately embrace all our perks.
I rank Teddy Roosevelt, just behind Reagan and Coolidge. I only met Reagan.
You clearly do not understand what "personal attack" means.
Hint, if you attack the judge for how he looks, for his dressing style, for what shoes he wears, for his skin colour, for his speaking style, for whom he is having sex with, that is a personal attack. An ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with the ruling. Irrelevant.
HOWEVER, pointing out that he might benefit financially from his own ruling, is NOT a personal attack. It is relevant to his ruling.
Thanks for making my arguement. You attack my lack of understanding rather than the issue. The moratorium on drilling was illegal.
Diz(zy)... In order to drill, there was an application made to the MMA. In this application, the company had to "assure" the liscensing agency that it could stop any leaks and repair any damage that should occur because of the drilling. IT WAS ALL A LIE, GET IT? The "original" authorization to commence drilling was illegal because it was based upon false testimony. AFTER the accident occured, BP obfuscated the situation by intentionally downgrading the severity of the accident thinking that just perhaps it could control it. Even when they realized that things were hitting the fan, they STILL downplayed (lied) about the scope, duration and impact of the event. NOBODY is making any arguments FOR you, you just don't seem to grasp the very basic concepts. There was nothing illegal about the moratorium, but there WAS something illegal about the application and authorization.
So, all of the 30,000 deep-water oil wells in operation over the past 20 years were based on lies?
Like all government agencies, the MMA lacked hands-on enforcement of permit critical design issues. This is because they generally don't have the expertise. Agency leaders are not required to be proficient in technical areas of the fields that they oversee. They are apparatchiks, and upwardly mobile community organizeers. This is why we now have a special investigating committee of academics to determine the cause of this historic disaster. The Obama regime has politicized every aspect of the investigation and enforcement. The government MMS likewise had too little engineering expertise and too many paralegal affirmative action political parasitic types to be an effective oversight agency.
BP is guilty of all the above. They need to pay. The moratorium will make us pay. Stopping the disaster is a technical problem. Extracting compensation from BP is the secondary problem, but the Obama regime has made it the #1 issue. All the the parasites are filling out grant applications as we speak.
YES, they are based upon lies. I'm not saying that we need to stop pumping on wells that have shown to be operating without incident, but we should stop all NEW drilling until there is a review. As for all those in operation, there should be a reveiw of the authorization procedures and possibly have "detection system" inspections performed underwater to ensure that things are as they've said.
The "heads" of agencies do not necessarily need to know what the agency does, since that position is administrative. However, the people (technicians) who review the paperwork and actually do site inspections need to know the work. The heads do however set general 'policy' and as such need input from those in the know, both those with a vested interest, and those who can be objective. What needs to be in place is a system to ensure that there is no immediate or promised pay offs for the government's employees. Also, data presented and/or procedures recommended by the company should be reviewed by non-partisan academics who understand the complexities and risks of the industry.
And make no mistake about it. The problem with revolving doors and pay offs goes well beyond one agency. The Pentagon is probably the worst offender, but the EPA, the USDA and all the other alphabet agencies are culpable as well.
This type of situation was warned about by consumer advocates like Ralph Nader decades ago when the US started signing international agreements that put economics above all other issues. IF this should go to international court, the WTO would be mandated to side with BP, since economics is more important than environmental laws or environmental impact.
The CAUSE of this disaster is largely one of greed. Years ago the oil industry switched from a 'detection based' quality inspection system to a 'process' quality system whereby welders, pipefitters, electricians and whatevers inspect their own work and 'certify' that everything is per specification. The MMA was suppose to do random checks to ensure that this was happening, but a bottle of bourbon on a luxury fishing vessle, accompanied by hostesses willing to please might make such 'inspections' just a matter of a handshake and a wink. Let's not screw with success, eh?
As for the Obama administration, I'm not a supporter, but let's give the Devil his due. One can only react to the information presented. When presented lies and half truths, it is difficult to adequately address the situation. ALSO, there is a need to immediately gather as much information as possible for future investigations, since the RNC proved years ago, that a few weeks notice can really give one a head start on the shredding process. BTW, don't trust FOX (faux) NEWS for any real information. They are the only media outlet that has won a court case by arguing that there is no law, rule or regulation that prohibits them from intentionally distorting or manipulating information. Now THAT should instill some confidence in all the tea-baggers throughout the country, most who are honest, hard working individuals, but too trusting of what they perceive as an honest institution.
Wow. Do you need to lighten up!? A Nader Raider I presume. You must be over 50, because you can write in English.
You managed to attack Fox News, The Pentagon, Gecko and the RNC. You missed GWB and Limbaugh, but I'm sure I know your feelings there. Again my point is made.
So after 20 years and 30,000 deep wells, the evil industry decided to start telling lies. None of us wanted inexpensive air conditioning. It was forced upon us. ;)
Actually, I agree with you on the relatively new legalistic reliance on "process quality systems". Quality detection inspections however require that the people must get away from their computers and off their rear agendas. Detection is harder than typing words about quality.
The word "integrity" keeps popping up. One wonders what happened to the actual substance of integrity. Perhaps it died with the implementation of numerous progressive education reforms. How is this "change" working out for you?
"just" business.
The WH and The Sierra Club? What a laugh.
They're both in the pocket of big oil.
This was a ruling regarding a very small company in the overall scheme of things. Just imagine the lawsuit filed by Exxon et al when we finally get legislation mandating the switch from fossil fuels to renewables or with a climate change bill that mandates the maximum amounts of carbon that can be sold. I agree with lord_buckley, and the judge in this case should have recused himself. Perhaps the judge in this case will find his house coated with Gulf oil scum and festooned with dead animals killed by the oilwell blowout.
Not sure why ownership of stock is an issue. Just out of curiosity i checked the prospectus of my mutal fund and i found about half those companies in that porfolio. True, not at those amounts.
Just for comparison did anyone look at what other investments the judge made. You know just to get a big picture. Cuz going by that list I am investing in energy companies as well.
Are you a judge ruling on this issue? If not, then YOUR ownership is immaterial. The question is: does the presiding judge have a conflict of interest, and it seems obvious to me that he does, and should therefore have recused himself.
My point is that if you own a mix of stocks there's bound to be energy stocks among the. They are pretty well performing (unless you it's BP stock).
Let's just say that whatever judge it was and he/she ruled the same, there would have been somethig to attack him with.
I mean come on, let's be realistic, offshore drilling isn'r really popular right now.
Public Auditors that work in public accounting firms are required to divest from client's stocks prior to working on the clients. It is typical for the auditors to work on many clients at the same time so they have to stay divested from many companies. In a nutshell, if you own the stock of the company, you can't audit the company. The same independence rules should apply to judges and if they don't like it, they shouldn't accept the job. It isn't that difficult.
Who woulda' guessed it?
Conflict of Interest. Period. Feldman should have recused himself.
recuse:
To disqualify or seek to disqualify from participation in a decision on grounds such as prejudice or personal involvement.
Of course, the fact his prejudice and involvement are obvious means nothing in today's world. Justice would require he recuse himself, but justice is dead.
"Justice is dead." Indeed.
FIVE THINGS TO DO:
1.) Salazar should remind these companies that want to do away with the moratorium, that should they have a loss of income, then GET IN LINE WITH THE FISHERMAN; after all, BP said they'd pay.
2.) Have Salazar review all MMS documents to make sure that ALL are using the proper equipment; etc. After all, the whole country knows that MMS didn't EVER check anything. Let's see, to check on all that equipment, rules and regs, should take about..about..SIX months.
3.) Since BP also promised "Totally Safe," and of course that didn't happen, then before proceeding, these companies should post an insurance bond equal to the amount of oil they think they have, and divided by the 20 billion that BP is paying. After all, we don't want to lowball the oil industry creative accounting, do we? BP just set the bar, didn't they.
4.) Let's see, I read that ExxonMobil made 52 billion in 2009 and yet, Paid NO TAXES! Just out of necessity, we need to know what these complaining oil guys paid, and if they too PAID nothing in taxes, then why are they complaining about losing money, since they paid NO taxes?
5.) The judge Feldman should of course remove himself from the case and the State Bar should take away his membership and license and ability to practice anything, because he obviously does not understand "UNJUST ENRICHMENT. The taxpayers pay him and so do the oil corporations...naughty, naughty.
"beginning to endanger the courts’ ability to conduct routine business"
Usan judges'/lawyers' "routine business" has long been to aid big business. But the agenda has never been unique to the courts. It's the "american way" and most facets of the society bow to big business, with career choices made almost exclusively to benefit ones personal "bottom line". How else could the most inefficient/destructive means of production prevail?
"Usan"?
American...
Thanks.
How?
Judge Feldman agreed, writing that the administration made an “arbitrary and capricious” decision that would have an “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.”
Response: Apparently trying to prevent another environmental catastrophe is "arbitrary and capricious". Lax govermental regulation is what contributed to the disaster and the result was a environmental catastrophe, a temporary loss of a source of our food supply, and a loss of thousands of jobs. Now the court argues that we still can't be concerned about prudent regulation by scaring us, in this case that we will lose jobs. But if another Deep Horizon incident happens, we will lose more jobs. The court is reckless in omitting environmental concerns in its decision.
When Anton Scalia refused to recuse himself from the 2000 Election case....He simply failed to tell anyone that his son was hired by the same law firm that represented George W.
When Anton Scalia refused to recuse himself from a case involving his good friend Dick Cheney.....He simply stated, "I can be impartial!
So the judges who have economic interests in the well being of oil companies can either recuse themselves or protect their economic interests...Unfortunately, "The Rule of Law" had been suspended after the election of 2000.
The politicians in D.C. vote according their own economic self interests.....For decades Presidents and Congressmen have had "Conflicts of Interest" and are: as guilty as those murdering civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, as guilty as those stealing billions from American Taxpayers,as guilty as those who allowed the attacks of 9/11 to happen.
The system is broken and the American People lack the knowledge and courage to demand and enforce change!!!!
This whole mess stinks, and not just because of the oil slicks.
When I invested in college plans for my 6 American grandchildren a couple of years ago, I specified that I did NOT want to invest in pharma, oil, gas, coal and armaments. Last week I got a list of the companies the fund put my money into. To my dismay there is 4% in Halliburton. However, everything else is in useful companies such as computers and software, biotechnology, construction and some foreign companies like Philips and French luxury goods. We have also moved all our money into a credit union bank and thrown away some of our credit cards. If the country (and the world) are going to be bankrupted, at least we're doing our little bit to slow down the process.
Judges, Supreme Court included, are supposed to recuse themselves, and Feldman ought to be censured publicly by the White House - won't be but should. The govt can't stop anybody from investing for profit in dirty stocks, but it can insist on impartiality in the courts. Too bad it never has and won't now.
I'm glad you found some way to invest in your grandchildren's future without investing in firms that will work to make a better future for them. When I had more money and was talking with people who were telling me I needed to think about my future by investing with them I would ask them about ways to invest in companies who's relentless pursuit of short term profits wasn't going to harm us all in the future. None of them had an answer for me, and none really had much to say when I asked them why they didn't have any investments that were good for the future.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals SHOULD overturn Judge Feldman's stay. Then he should be investigated for ethics violations.
Welcome to modern day America, were even our judges suffer from a lack of ethics!
"suffer from a lack of ethics!" ?? NAY I say, they do not suffer... they ENJOY that lack of conscience that dictates moral guidance. "We're a nation of laws", and the law has nothing to do with ethics.... silly Z1....
Judge Feldman's decision is filled with conflict of interest as his financial disclosure makes clear. Failure to recuse himself is itself a judicial abuse.
A reminder: Feldman was appointed by Reagan.
Judicial appointments matter. Obama so far has appointed over 40% women and people of color-- until now-- far exceeding all other Presidents. Clinton held the record--no surprise-- in such appointments unitl the Obama presidency.
David Cohen
Washington, DC
Hah! What scum the Obama administration are.
Forget that the other wells have nothing to do with the leak.
Forget that the moritorium is outlandish in it's length.
Forget that it will drive oil products way up.
Forget that it will make our country more dependant upon enemies and foreign oil.
Forget that THEY lied on the report.
Forget that in retaliation Obama has stopped the building of sand bars to block the leaking oil in the gulf, as a, "don't screw with me and my socialist agenda" message.
For get that this administration has broken constitutional law many many times.
The current administration and it's associates are COMMUNISTS trying to destroy our country from within and should be brought up on charges as traitors.
Obama first!
A wonderful bunch of comments containing three or four useful comments, the rest just loving to see their names in print.