Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama's decision on northern leg of Keystone XL pipeline could fuel November's mid-term elections (210 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wouldn't the politically expedient (7+ / 0-)

    thing to do is approve it, let the numerous lawsuits be filed, the project is stopped until every lawsuit has a final ruling, and Dems running for office can be appalled or in favor of it, whatever suits their election/re-election.

    And do you really think that the court(s) will approve this going forward when all the evidence of the damage it will cause is presented?  I don't know.  Just wondering if this is another way to go.

    If I was placing a bet, I'd bet that Obama will approve it, hoping that the court(s) will stop it.

    Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

    by gooderservice on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 01:17:04 PM PST

    •  goodservice - that's an interesting take (3+ / 0-)

      and very nuanced.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 01:34:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I doubt the plaintiffs would get an injunction. (5+ / 0-)

      Odds are the project would continue to be built while the lawsuits continued.

      •  You could be right, but how good are the lawyers (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        citisven, Dirtandiron

        and their suits and briefs.  It's hard to conceive -- yeah, go ahead while we work it out rather than stop, wait until we've reached a judgment.

        But of course you may be right and I'm wrong.  Don't know.  

        all speculation on my part.

        Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

        by gooderservice on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 01:41:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  perhaps too clever by half, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      denise b, Dirtandiron, Eyesbright

      so far Obama's maneuvered into the position where the proponents of the pipeline will have a very hard time arguing their arguments in favor weren't adequately considered, which is what administrative law typically requires -- process, not outcome.  I think that would make it very unlikely a court would act in reverse, based on those procedural arguments.  "National interest" is in the eye of the beholder, in any event: 'the government disagrees with me' is less a compelling legal argument than 'the government won't let me develop land on which I acquired the right of way.'  It would also have very little benefit to Obama to have a court kill it for him, not reputationally, certainly, and there's no real political advantage in approving it.  

      I do agree there's more going on, though, and I suspect Obama's hoping to see if Republicans will back off on obstructing other climate legislation if he approves the pipeline.  An outcome where the northern half of the pipeline is approved, but we have other laws in place that make the tar sands oil less attractive could be a a good deal.  A republican president in 2016 or 2020 might reverse the decision on the pipeline at any time, but comprehensive climate legislation would be harder to undo.  

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 03:22:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It could be (0+ / 0-)

      but the problem is, we no longer have courts that are un-compromised. These pipeline and oil company concerns have deep enough pockets to shop for judges wherever it's needed.

      OTOH, it might be workable, depending on the jurisdiction. Hard to say.

      This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

      by lunachickie on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 09:13:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site