To Drill OR Not To Drill That Is The Judgement In Question?

United States
June 24, 2010 8:25pm CST
Now I heard that a federal judge the other day ruled that the drilling should continue. Now is that finding found to be what an existing law of rule or is this what the judge see best fit in his own intrest because I remember not to long ago judge sotomeyer I hope I spelled that correctly was grilled about how she came to makeing decisions and would she make her decision based on the laws now as I heard this judge has a lot of stock in oil and seem like for that he should have not decided on this case in the first place. Matter or fact I think he should have let the public and all other concerning parties know that due to his involvment with oil in the manner that he is and probably know of a lot of other oil men and women in the business that he should not rule in this case. What are your feeling towards this seem to me before any appeals it should be ruled by a judge who was no intrest in the case that would make him or her in favor one way or another and therefor this judge ruling should be dismissed and tried before another judge to see who needs to appeal or if the appeal that has been put in motion by the white house proceeds? What are your thoughts on this matter especially from the people on the costal areas?
2 people like this
7 responses
@cripfemme (7719)
• United States
25 Jun 10
I don't think to drill or not to drill is the question--or at least not the one we should be asking. I think more long-term solution would be to focus on how else we could get power. Oil is always going to spill out somewhere we don't want it to (if we drill). It doesn't matter if it's on land or in the sea. I don't find it any more attractive to ruin the Alaskan wild life refuge than to ruin the Gulf coast. Why are we still talking about where to get it from. We should be talking technologies that will enable us not to rely on oil.
@RobtheRock (2485)
• United States
25 Jun 10
You are right SocialSocietynews, it is a conflict of interest. No judge who has interests in a case, should be ruling on it. It scares me how it doesn't matter to some folks how big business gets away with the bad things they do and when the government tries to do something, then the government looks like the bad guy.
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17927)
• United States
25 Jun 10
I don't believe this judge tried to hide anything so I have no reason to suspect that he is unethical in any way. I am of two minds regarding this issue because I live in Florida. I want to ensure that the other rigs drilling off the coast of the U.S. are safe and are able to stop an out of control spill if something goes wrong but I'm also keenly aware of the financial hardship shutting them all down would put on even more people.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27159)
• United States
25 Jun 10
I can certainly understand where this is a difficult issue, one where the Obama Administration really can't win for losing! The people need the jobs provided by the oil rigs so the moratorium will hurt them BUT on the other hand, if, heaven forbid, drilling is allowed to continue and another spill happens, guess who will get blamed for THAT as well? As far as this particular judge, I understand that usually under circumstances such as these a judge will recuse him or herself from the case; I wonder why this one did not, just to ensure there could be no question of conflict of interest? Out of curiosity I was wondering if everyone else here was aware of how many rigs this moratorium actually affects. I was very surprised to learn that while there are over 3600 oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico there are only 33 that are in the drilling or exploratory stage.
@laglen (19783)
• United States
25 Jun 10
I think you would be hard pressed to find a judge that does NOT have money tied to oil. It is a good investment. The judge said, and I agree that one accident does not mean that all rigs should be shut down. That is like saying that one car accident means nobody should drive cars. Now think about the economy, all of the people working in the other rigs. The only reason Obama wanted the moratorium was to collect more from BP and lay blame. It will solve NOTHING
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
25 Jun 10
the ruling was legally accurate and appropriate. We cannot just abide by our constitution when it is convenient for us. The permits that were already issued must stand. There is nothing saying though that they each cant be looked at to see if they are up to par and issued under valid circumstances. WE can also very meticulously reinspect each of the platforms and if there is so much as a bolt out of place, then revoke the permit. But you can't just arbitrarily shut down legally issued permits with out due cause.
@sierras236 (2740)
• United States
25 Jun 10
His oil interests were no secret. The investments numbers were from 2008, so obviously his portfolio has changed by then. His actual investment for this year is being held up by some security agency. So depending on his total investments it is probably a very small percentage of his overall investments. You are also likely to find that the Supreme Court Justices have some investments in oil. Actually, if you break it down a lot of people have some sort of investment in oil somewhere in their portfolio. His decision was based on the fact that history has never shut down an entire industry due to an accident. (Paraphrasing) Those oil rigs won't sit there for six months. Those companies will move them. Thus moving more jobs to foreigners. Thus hurting the economy even more in the Gulf. Leading to less energy independence and even more dependence on foreign oil. No what makes me mad about the situation is that President Obama has not allowed outside sources to help clean up the spill. Also, that he is interfering with the clean-up process by not stepping out of the way and letting the local government do what it needs to do.