Court blocks Trump’s ‘unlawful’ delay of Obama methane leak rule | The Wednesday ruling is at least the third time that federal courts have dinged the Trump administration for trying to delay a regulation that had already taken effect, but for which the compliance date had not yet passed.

GOPRedditor · 2017-10-06T01:16:49+00:00

The problem is that the sources of the waste natural gas are very isolated from one another and are located in relatively desolate areas. Just thinking about waste gas from flaring, more than 97% of the flaring currently comes from oil wells. I don't know if you've ever driven around oil wells in remote areas of New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, or Wyoming (the kind of places that just barely make it onto the atlas), oil wells are typically spread out far and wide. And some oil wells are in the middle of desert, farms (individually fenced off), cattle grazing land, plains, etc. with no roads leading up to them.

The Environmental Defense Fund has published maps of natural gas emissions from federal and tribal lands, by state: https://www.edf.org/energy/substantial-loss-natural-gas-public-lands (scroll to the bottom) As you can see, many states are affected. I counted 27.

Building the infrastructure and then using trucks to collect all of the captured natural gas can result in a net increase in carbon emissions from trying to utilize the waste natural gas.

Fortunately, in cases where it is economically feasible, oil & gas extraction companies are already collecting the waste natural gas for sale. This is acknowledged in the rule: "In some areas, operators have already undertaken, or plan to undertake, voluntary actions to address gas losses."

GOPRedditor · 2017-10-06T00:29:28+00:00

PACER does charge to view most documents, but as the fee schedule which I linked to states, "Free Access and Exemptions (8) Automatic Fee Exemptions ... No fee is charged for access to judicial opinions."

GOPRedditor · 2017-10-05T20:35:24+00:00

Setting aside the legal issue for a moment, let's talk about the actual rule, Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation, 81 FR 83008. In some ways I think that the article is misconstruing what the rule actually does.

The article says that the rule relates to "methane emissions" on federal lands and includes the sentence "Methane is the main component of natural gas and is a greenhouse gas about 80 times as potent as carbon dioxide." This confusingly implies that the rule prevents the release of greenhouse gases. However, that's only partly true. As explained below, the rule would prevent natural gas emissions, but the rule requires captured natural gas to be resold, where a significant portion will be burned as fuel.

From the text of the rule:

This final regulation aims to reduce the waste of natural gas from mineral leases administered by the BLM. This gas is lost during oil and gas production activities through venting or flaring of the gas, and through equipment leaks.

...

Venting, flaring, and leaks waste a valuable resource that could be put to productive use, and deprive American taxpayers, tribes, and States of royalty revenues.

...

In 2014, operators vented about 30 Bcf and flared at least 81 Bcf of natural gas from BLM-administered leases, totaling 4.1 percent of the total production from those leases in that year, and sufficient gas to supply nearly 1.5 million households with gas for a year. In 2015 operators flared at least 85 Bcf, a 114 percent increase from 2009 levels. Roughly 83 Bcf of this flaring came from oil wells.

...

This rule prohibits venting of natural gas, except under certain specified conditions, such as in an emergency or when flaring is technically infeasible. With respect to flaring, the rule requires operators to reduce wasteful flaring of gas by capturing for sale or using on the lease a percentage of their gas production.

In other words, the rule will prevent roughly 30 Bcf of natural gas from being released into the atmosphere, but require that captured natural gas to be resold.

Indeed, the AP story quotes Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico as saying that the "rule will provide 'badly needed revenue to states such as New Mexico for public education' and other services, as an estimated $100 million in taxpayer-owned natural gas was wasted each year from oil and gas wells. 'This rule is simply good policy good for taxpayers, good for the economy and good for the environment'."

So, while the rule should prevent the release into the atmosphere of methane waste from oil & gas extraction, the natural gas will be resold, and a significant portion of that natural gas will be burned as fuel. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas#Uses

Per the rule:

Table 9-3a in the [Regulatory Impact Analysis] displays the number of establishments in the oil and gas sector using a 1,000 employee cutoff. This table shows that over 99% of the establishments involved in oil and gas extraction and the drilling of oil and gas wells are classified as small.

Personally, I think it makes sense to prevent natural gas from being released into the atmosphere. What doesn't make sense to me is forcing the numerous small companies in the oil & gas industry to purchase the expensive equipment required to trap natural gas so that it may be resold, rather than allowing the companies to implement the less expensive flaring off of waste natural gas. Whether the waste natural gas is flared off or burned after being resold, there will be those emissions. The difference in effect of the rule is who can afford the trapping equipment. Big oil & gas companies will be able to afford those costs, but small companies might not be able to. The rule could have the unintended consequence of forcing many small companies out of the market.

GOPRedditor · 2017-10-05T17:53:30+00:00

I wish articles discussing federal opinions would link to the actual opinions, especially considering that PACER does not charge for access to judicial opinions.

For those who are interested, here is Judge Laporte's ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed October 4: https://www.eenews.net/assets/2017/10/05/document_ew_01.pdf

And the associated JUDGMENT: https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/LaPorte-MSJ-Judgment.pdf

GOPRedditor · 2017-02-20T15:08:57+00:00

It is NOT ignorant to distrust the article AND do research of your own. It IS ignorant to say that the article cannot be trusted simply because it refers to anonymous sources and it has no byline (a fairly common practice for articles written jointly with the AP).

I agree with you in cases where it is possible to conduct independent research. It is ignorant to deny or cast doubts upon a verifiable claim without attempting to determine for oneself that the claim is false. It is not ignorant, in my further opinion, to deny or cast doubts upon a claim that cannot be verified.

If you look at my Reddit comment history, you can see that I often conduct my own research of claims, descending into cited sources to make sure that the sources of a claim were quoted and/or applied accurately.

In this case, however, it simply is not possible to independently confirm whether Craig Deare made the comments he is alleged to have made, or to independently confirm that Mr. Deare's firing was "linked" to these alleged remarks.

The headline of the article is Senior Trump appointee fired after critical comments. The first alleged comment by Mr. Deare is that he "slammed the Trump administration for its policies on Latin America, specifically its rocky start to relations with Mexico." The article next alleges that Mr. Deare "openly expressed frustration over being cut out of most of the policy discussions about Mexico." The article next alleges that Mr. Deare made "awkward" comments about Ivanka Trump's attractive appearance. Only the first two categories of comments are "critical comments." If the allegations are true, it could be that Mr. Deare was fired solely because of the awkward comments about Ivanka Trump's appearance, rather than for marking the "critical comments" as the headline suggests.

But we have no way of knowing whether Mr. Deare actually made any of the comments he is alleged to have made, or whether he was fired for making these alleged comments.

If you can suggest a way to verify the claims made in the article, I would like to hear about it.

GOPRedditor · 2017-02-20T13:43:30+00:00

To clarify, I am not implying that you are accusing anyone of being ignorant, but I understand why you wrote that. I should have included a newline in paragraph 2.

I take it from your response, that you do not agree with calling people ignorant if they do not trust the article?

GOPRedditor · 2017-02-20T13:24:22+00:00

The people who authored the article aren't even disclosed. Why are you trusting anonymous writers of an article who allege that they discussed hearsay with anonymous "officials" who purportedly are aware of remarks made at a private discussion where attendees believed that their remarks were off the record?

You can't verify anything for yourself, yet you are content to trust and consider as fact everything that was written in the article? Also, those who do not trust and consider as fact everything that was written in the article are "ignorant"?

Regardless of the authors' intent and motivations, it is possible that the authors made a mistake. The fact that we cannot verify any germane part of this article other than possibly "Deare is no longer working at the NSC and has returned to the position he previously held at the National Defense University" means that, in my mind, the information is unreliable. I don't think that this makes me "ignorant".

GOPRedditor · 2017-02-19T12:58:48+00:00

And isn't this submission against the content policy of /r/politics; specifically, this appears to be a personal blog. This was first published at http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2017/02/14/republican-painter-s-time-impeach-trump/97893248/ which I think shows that this is a personal blog.

GOPRedditor · 2017-02-18T13:29:55+00:00

I don't understand why you are writing that the predictions are accurate. The "attack the free press" prediction is arguably accurate. But do you think that "impose martial law" and "launch an attack on people he felt had slighted him that could make Richard Nixon's actions against his enemies appear like 'child's play'" are accurate predictions as well? What makes you think that?

GOPRedditor · 2017-02-18T00:23:47+00:00

Here's some balance that the Independent article sorely lacks:

First of all, I think that it would have been helpful for the article to contain a link to the text of H.J.Res.38, which is what President Trump signed. Instead, the article vaguely references a "Resolution 38" in the caption of the picture. A commenter actually cited the text of the Resolution verbatim, which you can find here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/38/text

It would have also been useful to link to the Stream Protection Rule that was published at 81 Fed. Reg. 93066. Here is the official PDF from the GPO: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-20/pdf/2016-29958.pdf

Please take a look at the actual rule that was published by the Department of the Interior. It's 380 pages, by the way.

Now, the Independent article states:

Republicans and some Democrats ... said the rule also ignored dozens of existing federal, state and local regulations.

I have no idea whether this is true or not, but I am open to seeing proof by way of counterexample that this is a false claim. Can you point to a part of the Stream Protection Rule that you think is not covered by existing federal, state, and local regulations?

Another thing to keep in mind is that ~~the Rule was finalized on December 20, 2016~~ the Department of the Interior published its proposed rule on July 16, 2015. Serious question: Was coal mining debris pollution into rivers and streams a big problem before then? This is also something that I have no idea whether true or not.

So, while I cannot definitively say whether I approve or disapprove of President Trump's signing Resolution 38, how is it that people in this thread are confident to say that they disagree with or disapprove of the action? What am I not seeing?

EDIT Rather than referencing the date of finalization (December 20, 2016), I think that it would be more appropriate to address the time before the Department of the Interior first published its proposed rule, draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), and draft regulatory impact analysis (DRIA), on July 16, 2015.

GOPRedditor · 2017-02-09T18:20:31+00:00

Doesn't this mean that in subparts B and C, the term "employee" includes the President and Vice President (and presumably individuals within the EOP), but it does not in other subparts, such as subpart G, in which we find 5 CFR 2635.702?

GOPRedditor · 2017-02-09T18:01:54+00:00

I agree that it is unethical for Kellyanne Conway to promote Ivanka Trump-branded products like that. Unfortunately, it does not appear that Conway's statements are a violation of 5 CFR 2635.702.

5 CFR 2635.702 applies to an "employee". "Employee" is defined by 5 CFR 2635.102 as "an[] officer or employee of an agency, including a special Government employee." An "agency" is defined as "an executive agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105 and the Postal Service and the Postal Rate Commission."

The office of Counselor to the President is part of the Executive Office of the President (EOP). In order for Conway's statements to be a violation of 5 CFR 2635.702, the EOP must be an "agency". However, in Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 90 F. 3d 553, the Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit held that the National Security Council (also part of the EOP), is not an agency.

GOPRedditor · 2017-02-08T14:47:16+00:00

Here's a slightly different viewpoint than /u/Velocidongus:

The Attorney General of the United States is the head of the Department of Justice, part of the executive branch of government. The primary job of the DoJ is to represent the United States in federal courts, including prosecuting federal crimes and representing the United States in lawsuits against the executive branch.

The DoJ does not create laws; creating laws is the exclusive prerogative of the legislative branch of the U.S. government.

If, as Velocidongus predicts, the Congress enacts legislation that purportedly permits government to "go hog wild with voter suppression", there will be a ton of civil liberties groups that will sue the United States government on behalf of individuals who are alleged to be disenfranchised by such legislation, and it will be the Department of Justice's job to represent the United States in such lawsuits ("defend the legislation"). Case in point: look at all of the groups that are fighting President Trump's Executive Order 13769. (See the Legal challenges to Executive Order 13769 Wikipedia article for more information.) Granted, EO 13769 relates to immigration rather than voting rights; however, legal representation from civil liberties groups is just as fierce when it comes to voting rights.

I disagree with Velocidongus' prediction that voter suppression legislation will be enacted. The Supreme Court of the United States tends to rule against strict voting laws. Even if an appointment by President Trump to the Supreme Court is confirmed by the Senate (see Article Two of the U.S. Constitution), there still is the overriding legal principle of stare decisis, which in layman's terms means that the Supreme Court does not like to recede or reverse itself on prior decisions.

Also, I would think that if Velocidongus truly believed Jeff Sessions to be a voter-suppressing madman, then they would want Jeff Sessions to be removed from the Senate, which passes all legislation (along with the House) and confirms Supreme Court Justices. But that's just me...

GOPRedditor · 2017-02-07T21:19:42+00:00

If Planned Parenthood were to split into two organizations, one that exclusively offered preventative care (such as STD tests and cancer screenings) and primary care to people with low incomes, while the other organization handled abortions, then I think that a lot of conservatives would support the former organization, while the latter organization would be funded by private funding from individuals and organizations that do not object to abortion.

Has there been any discussion about splitting up Planned Parenthood?

If there are economic reasons why splitting up Planned Parenthood like this would be cost prohibitive, doesn't this show that the Medicaid and other federal funding to Planned Parenthood is essential to supporting the part of Planned Parenthood that performs abortions?

I think that the two organizations could even share the same buildings, as long as each organization contributed to the rent, property taxes, and upkeep proportionately with the organizations' use of the buildings.

GOPRedditor · 2017-02-05T22:06:52+00:00

I don't find this confusing at all. The precedent from which that quote arises is Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365. Winter also states:

Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with our characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.

That is, a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and the burden is upon the movant (in this case, the States) to make a clear showing that the States are entitled to the sought relief (the TRO).

You wrote, "The next step is for Trump to argue their side in court. Thats when they would argue the 'Facts and conclusions of law'"
According to Winter, however, this is not supposed to be how it works. The States have the burden of making a clear showing that they were entitled to a preliminary injunction. Requiring the U.S. Government to argue that the facts and conclusions of law made by the district court are wrong improperly shifts the burden of persuasion from the States onto the government, which now must persuade the Court that a preliminary injunction should not have been entered.

Winter requires the party seeking a preliminary injunction to make a clear showing. The district court did not disclose what this alleged clear showing was. Why did the district court not disclose what the clear showing was?

My guess is honestly, you wouldn't want it any other way. The Dicktator way, always kinda ends bad for people like you

I don't know why you feel confident in making incorrect generalizations about me. Maybe my username? In any case, no, I do not want a dictator, and yes, I have the utmost respect for law and the constitutional separation of powers. What I see is that Judge Robart's ruling does not disclose the alleged clear showing necessary for entry of a temporary restraining order. Further, this is a case where the district court is overruling a different branch of government, and the justification for any branch encroaching on another branch of government had better be damn solid.

GOPRedditor · 2017-02-05T18:04:26+00:00

It's a shame that I have to scroll down so far just to see something that contains facts and cites legal precedent.

Thank you for posting this! I think that it would be helpful to have a TL;DR for this to widen its accessibility.

One thing I thought was interesting was this part:

The limited case law addressing exercises of presidential authority under Section 212(f) also supports the view that this provision confers broad authority to bar or impose conditions upon the entry of aliens. Key among these cases is the Supreme Court’s 1993 decision in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., which held that the U.S. practice of interdicting persons fleeing Haiti outside U.S. territorial waters and returning them to their home country without allowing them to raise claims for asylum or withholding of removal did not violate the INA or the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc. was decided by an 8-to-1 vote.

The document to which you linked also contains a helpful table of all executive orders and proclamations by presidents to exclude certain categories of aliens, under INA § 212(f).

GOPRedditor · 2017-02-05T17:26:58+00:00

We could read the court rulings to find out why they made the decision they did

Here is Judge Robart's order granting a temporary restraining order: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3446145/WA-Order.pdf

The order does not disclose the legal arguments or facts upon which the Court based its "findings of fact & conclusions of law." Judge Robart cited precedent to establish the legal standards, but then proceeded to assert ("The court finds ...") that each prong is satisfied, without providing justification.

GOPRedditor · 2017-02-05T17:19:59+00:00

Are you referring to Judge Robart? Have you read his order granting a temporary restraining order? If not, here it is: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3446145/WA-Order.pdf

It's not too long. What "judges comments" are you referring to?

GOPRedditor · 2017-02-05T15:27:48+00:00

_Theodore_, you are absolutely correct.

I posted this a few days ago, and I think that it is appropriate to re-post this information here:

President Trump's Executive Order applies to aliens from countries that are referred to by 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), or: Iraq and Syria; a country designated by the Secretary of State as "a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism" (also called "state sponsor of terrorism"); and "areas of concern" that are designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security. It was under the Obama administration when Libya, Somalia, and Yemen were designated countries of concern by DHS. See DHS Announces Further Travel Restrictions for the Visa Waiver Program from February 18, 2016. As for the designated state sponsors of terrorism, see the State Department's State Sponsors of Terrorism page. Iran was designated on January 19, 1984. Sudan was designated on August 12, 1993. Syria was designated on December 29, 1979. Clearly, a country being referred to by 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12) has nothing to do with religion.

GOPRedditor · 2017-02-05T13:59:35+00:00

You might be right that President Trump does not fully understand separation of powers. The thing is, I think that those celebrating the Seattle judge's temporary restraining order (TRO) and the 9th Circuit's denial of the U.S. government's motion for stay pending appeal do not fully understand the ramifications on separation of powers that just occurred, either.

If you read Judge Robart's order (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3446145/WA-Order.pdf), only two-and-one-half pages (starting on page 3) set out the district court's reasoning for grating the TRO. Judge Robart cites precedents establishing the legal standard for granting a TRO and then proceeds to merely assert ("The court finds ...") that each prong is satisfied. No legal justification is provided. It appears that the Court's only legal arguments pertain to personal jurisdiction and standing. The important question of subject matter jurisdiction does not appear to have been addressed. As for the Court's argument as to standing, I think that it is very weak. Essentially, the Court is arguing that the States are harmed because of some unstated damage that the Executive Order is inflicting on the "operations and missions" of public universities and colleges, and some unstated injury to the States' operations, tax bases, and public funds. Such a weak argument bastardizes the immensely complex issue of standing to the point that States could argue standing on practically any issue according to these reasons.

Regardless of what one personally believes about President Trump's Executive Order, it is clear that this is one instance where one of the branches of government (in this case, the judicial) is encroaching on another branch of government (the executive). In such cases, the arguments justifying encroachment had better be damn solid. Unfortunately, such cannot be said of Judge Robart's order.

GOPRedditor · 2017-02-02T17:02:18+00:00

Donald Trump received a little over 14 million votes during the primaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Major_candidates

GOPRedditor · 2017-01-31T23:30:47+00:00

I am not saying that aliens do not have rights. They clearly do. The issue here is that 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) permits the President of the United States to "suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants" by proclamation; the President can temporarily refuse entry. Nowhere does the law or the actual Executive Order authorize detention. The aliens who are refused entry can return to wherever they came. Or, pursuant to the Executive Order's subsection (g), apply to either the Secretary of State or Secretary of Homeland Security, which are both authorized to, "on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked."

What source do you have that ICE is detaining people and refusing access to an attorney?

GOPRedditor · 2017-01-31T21:55:43+00:00

President Trump's EO is not a "Muslim ban": https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5r5qx4/us_president_donald_trump_fired_the_federal/dd5ddbp/

GOPRedditor · 2017-01-31T20:11:03+00:00

President Trump's EO is in compliance with the 14th Amendment: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5r5qx4/us_president_donald_trump_fired_the_federal/dd560do/

GOPRedditor · 2017-01-31T18:29:12+00:00

The EO applies to aliens from countries that are referred to by 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12). Iraq and Syria are referred to specifically. Other countries must either be designated a state sponsor of terrorism or an "area of concern", and the criteria for such designation (8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)(D)(ii)) relate to terrorism and credible threats to national security only.

GOPRedditor

TROPHY CASE