Google Search

Showing posts with label decision. Show all posts
Showing posts with label decision. Show all posts

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Obama administration delays decision on Keystone XL pipeline

Keystone XL pipeline Nebraska Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) calls for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline at a news conference in March on Capitol Hill. (Jim Watson / AFP/Getty Images / March 25, 2014)

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has delayed a decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project, perhaps until after November’s midterm election.

A further delay in the evaluation of the pipeline, which already has lasted more than five years, is necessary because of a Nebraska state court decision in February that invalidated part of the project’s route, the State Department said in a statement.

Shortly after the court ruling, administration officials had said the Nebraska case would not have an impact on their deliberations. But in the new statement, the State Department said federal agencies could not evaluate the pipeline’s impact until the “uncertainty created by the ongoing litigation” is resolved.

That could take awhile. Nebraska officials have appealed the case to the state Supreme Court but have said they do not expect a ruling until late this year at the earliest.

In the meantime, the latest delay could get President Obama off a politically difficult hook in an election year. The White House has been pressed on one side by environmentalists who have turned opposition to the pipeline into a major cause and on the other by conservative Democrats from energy-producing states who support it.

Administration officials have differed on both the substance and the politics of a decision on Keystone, which would carry oil from the tar sands deposits underneath Canada’s western prairies to refineries in Texas and Oklahoma.

Opponents say the project would worsen global warming by opening up the tar sands to development. Supporters say it would reduce U.S. dependence on oil from the Middle East, Africa and other unstable parts of the world and that Canada will develop the tar sands whether the U.S. approves a pipeline or not.

Obama has said he would approve the project only if it could be proven not to worsen emissions of greenhouse gases that lead to global warming. His approval is needed because the pipeline crosses an international border.

Politically, Obama’s advisors have disagreed about the impact on a difficult election season in which Democrats face a strong prospect of losing control of the Senate.

Some advisors believe that a decision to kill the pipeline could boost enthusiasm among Democratic activists, which has been lagging. Others argue that since most of the key Senate races are taking place in red states, such as Louisiana, Alaska and Arkansas, a decision against the project could hurt Democratic prospects.

Those political calculations were on display as lawmakers and others reacted to the administration’s decision.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who has campaigned for reelection by stressing her independence from Obama, lambasted the delay as “irresponsible, unnecessary and unacceptable” and vowed to use her position as head of the Senate Energy Committee to win approval for the pipeline.

“Today’s decision by the administration amounts to nothing short of an indefinite delay of the Keystone pipeline,” she said, warning that it sends “a signal that the small minority who oppose the pipeline can tie up the process in court forever.”

Another conservative Democrat, Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), said the move “leaves everyone waiting in limbo.”

“It hurts all of us when no decisions are made,” she said in a statement.

Republicans and the oil industry quickly denounced the decision.

“At a time of high unemployment in the Obama economy, it’s a shame,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

“It’s a sad day for America’s workers when politics trumps job-creating policy at the White House,” American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said in a statement.

Russ Girling, chief executive of TransCanada, which is proposing to build the pipeline, said in a statement that the company was “extremely disappointed and frustrated with yet another delay.”

Environmental groups were thrilled. The League of Conservation Voters hailed the delay as “great news” that “makes us even more confident that the harmful Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will ultimately be rejected.”

david.lauter@latimes.com

Twitter: @DavidLauter

lisa.mascaro@latimes.com

Twitter: @LisaMascaroinDC


View the original article here

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Ann Coulter takes on Howard Dean about Wal-Mart SCOTUS decision (Daily Caller)

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday by a 5-4 decision that a class action lawsuit filed in California had failed to prove gender discrimination was a widespread policy of Wal-Mart. The markets rallied after the suit was dismissed and it was heralded as a positive sign for business in the United States by some observers.

On Monday’s “The Kudlow Report” on CNBC, conservative pundit and “Demonic” author Ann Coulter took on former Democratic National Committee chairman and CNBC contributor Howard Dean on the merits of the decision. Coulter explained the circumstances where a class action lawsuit would have been appropriate, such as when a broad range of individuals in similar circumstances are affected in a way that each individual case would not make financial sense to try separately.

“[H]ere you have none of that,” Coulter said. “You have, as you bring up, absolutely individual circumstances with each employee — not only that, you have individual circumstances with each manager. All of these employees have different managers determining what they get paid, how long they work, what their work treatment is like. The reason they wanted a class action in California was because of the Ninth Circuit, which is very anti-employer. It’s an insane case for a class-action case. And not surprisingly, 9-0, the court reject this had case, although at the risk of having the market collapse again, it was 5-4 with the four liberals saying that they could have brought a class-action under a different theory.”

Dean was less impressed with the Court’s decision and declared it an “anti-worker court,” but noted that the decision didn’t absolve Wal-Mart of the discrimination charges.

“Look, first of all, it’s important to note that the court did not find there was no discrimination,” Dean said. “That I didn’t hear anybody trying to claim that they found there was no discrimination. There could be. We don’t know that. That’s an issue that has to be tried. I hope a public interest lawyer who doesn’t rely on the 30 percent or whatever it is commission will be able to still try the case and find out. Secondly, it is true. This is a tough decision for employees. This is a pro-business court which makes it an anti-worker court, I guess in this context. I personally don’t think that’s a good thing for the country. I think right now, the corporate balance sheets have recovered fully from the crash of September 2008. But the balance sheets of the American families haven’t recovered. I think we’re out of balance. You know, I’m not a lawyer. I can’t say whether the — if they had a unanimous decision saying this particular one wasn’t the right way to certify it, we have to respect the unanimous decisions of the Supreme Court.”

Dean told Kudlow he wasn’t biased against Wal-Mart, but wished the company had put more of an emphasis on jobs in the United States versus overseas.

“Larry, let’s be honest — first of all, I’m not in the ‘I hate Wal-Mart’ crowd,” Dean said. “I think they’ve changed a lot over the last five or six years and I think they’ve made a difference. And they’ve created millions of jobs. Unfortunately most of the millions of jobs they’ve created have been in China, not in the United States. So I think it’s time we gave American workers a break here. I don’t think this case was much of a break for most American workers.”

However, Coulter said it wasn’t a defeat for employees necessarily, but instead a defeat for trial lawyers.

“I would like to disagree with the idea that this is employer versus employee here,” Coulter said. “This was anti-trial lawyer. That’s the advantage of the class-action. They get all their attorneys’ fees for the entire country. They get much bigger damage as a slice of this. Employees would have been hurt by this because Wal-Mart would have had a lot less money, all going to trial lawyers to hire more employees. This is not employer versus employee.”

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Santorum parodies Huntsman, hits at Romney in new video

Ann Coulter takes on Howard Dean about Wal-Mart SCOTUS decision

I'm talking about Michaele Salahi, which means she wins

Michaele Salahi to perform song live, address rumors on upcoming projects

Politico's Vogel strikes again -- takes talk radio fight to Olbermann's Current TV debut


View the original article here