What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

High Court Rejects Gas Company's Pipeline Stay Request

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
43,851
Reaction score
19,849
Points
2,300
Environmentalists aren't on that court and didn't make that ruling.

Judge John Roberts is on that court and did make that ruling.
THEY SUED Spire!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DUH
......
......dumbass jackasses--THEY also will have to pay more ----they are terrorists that need to be burned at the stake
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
43,851
Reaction score
19,849
Points
2,300
I think you're missing reading the article.

From the article:

The Environmental Defense Fund contended in a lawsuit that the pipeline harms land in its path, and that taxpayers will foot the bill for decades to come.

In June, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that FERC “failed to adequately balance public benefits and adverse impacts” in approving the pipeline. The panel also wrote that evidence showed the pipeline “is not being built to serve increasing load demand and that there is no indication the new pipeline will lead to cost savings.”
you WANT our energy resources axed????!!! that's stupid
 
OP
Dana7360

Dana7360

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2014
Messages
14,989
Reaction score
13,221
Points
2,405
Hey stupid people ... this is a natural gas pipeline, not gasoline ... can't y'all read? ... even Bubba can make it to Middle School sometimes ...


That's the problem.

Most people don't read the information provided.

Most of the time there's no use to post information to some people.

They won't read it.
 
OP
Dana7360

Dana7360

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2014
Messages
14,989
Reaction score
13,221
Points
2,405
Its a real question, neither the op nor Google has been able to provide and answer. I can find some issues with questionable accounting "self dealing" as the complaint put it, but no environmental concerns.


Actually yes there was.

It's not at the beginning of the article but towards the end.

From the article.

The Environmental Defense Fund contended in a lawsuit that the pipeline harms land in its path, and that taxpayers will foot the bill for decades to come.

In June, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that FERC “failed to adequately balance public benefits and adverse impacts” in approving the pipeline. The panel also wrote that evidence showed the pipeline “is not being built to serve increasing load demand and that there is no indication the new pipeline will lead to cost savings.”
 

DrLove

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
37,675
Reaction score
19,759
Points
1,915
Location
Central Oregon Coast
you LIKE higher prices?

I don't mind higher prices. Gas has been kept artificially low for years. And I don't mind paying extra tax to support the move from petrol burners to EVs, to help pay for roads and bridges and to incentivize gas companies for moving to clean energy.
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
43,851
Reaction score
19,849
Points
2,300
That's the problem.

Most people don't read the information provided.

Most of the time there's no use to post information to some people.

They won't read it.
it doesn't matter --you and them are hypocrites--you use cars/electric/etc .....
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
43,851
Reaction score
19,849
Points
2,300
I don't mind higher prices. Gas has been kept artificially low for years. And I don't mind paying extra tax to support the move from petrol burners to EVs, to help pay for roads and bridges and to support gas companies moving to clean energy.
hahahhahahahahahah----it's fking up the US economy .....
 

DrLove

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
37,675
Reaction score
19,759
Points
1,915
Location
Central Oregon Coast
OP
Dana7360

Dana7360

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2014
Messages
14,989
Reaction score
13,221
Points
2,405
THEY SUED Spire!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DUH
......
......dumbass jackasses--THEY also will have to pay more ----they are terrorists that need to be burned at the stake


But they didn't make the ruling.

The judges on the appeals court and the supreme court made the ruling.

They could have ruled in favor of the pipe company but they didn't.

So if a conservative judge rules in favor of the environmental group, it's the environmental group to blame for how the judge ruled?

To some extent.

The environmental company made a very compelling case and proved what they claimed.

It's unusual for a conservative judge to rule in favor of environmentalists.

That should tell you that the environmentalists had a compelling case and the pipe company didn't.

Funny, you don't want to pay to bring out nation to the 21st century, you don't want to pay for children to have food and clothes but you want to pay for the environmental damage that pipeline is doing to the land.

How about we save all that money and don't allow the pipe company to damage the land in the first place?

Since you obviously didn't read the whole article here's part of the judge's ruling. Are you now going to say the judges are lying?

The Environmental Defense Fund contended in a lawsuit that the pipeline harms land in its path, and that taxpayers will foot the bill for decades to come.

In June, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that FERC “failed to adequately balance public benefits and adverse impacts” in approving the pipeline. The panel also wrote that evidence showed the pipeline “is not being built to serve increasing load demand and that there is no indication the new pipeline will lead to cost savings.”
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
43,851
Reaction score
19,849
Points
2,300
But they didn't make the ruling.

The judges on the appeals court and the supreme court made the ruling.

They could have ruled in favor of the pipe company but they didn't.

So if a conservative judge rules in favor of the environmental group, it's the environmental group to blame for how the judge ruled?

To some extent.

The environmental company made a very compelling case and proved what they claimed.

It's unusual for a conservative judge to rule in favor of environmentalists.

That should tell you that the environmentalists had a compelling case and the pipe company didn't.

Funny, you don't want to pay to bring out nation to the 21st century, you don't want to pay for children to have food and clothes but you want to pay for the environmental damage that pipeline is doing to the land.

How about we save all that money and don't allow the pipe company to damage the land in the first place?

Since you obviously didn't read the whole article here's part of the judge's ruling. Are you now going to say the judges are lying?

The Environmental Defense Fund contended in a lawsuit that the pipeline harms land in its path, and that taxpayers will foot the bill for decades to come.

In June, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that FERC “failed to adequately balance public benefits and adverse impacts” in approving the pipeline. The panel also wrote that evidence showed the pipeline “is not being built to serve increasing load demand and that there is no indication the new pipeline will lead to cost savings.”
the very dumbass environmentalists started the crap--it's on them ---you are all dumbasses
 
OP
Dana7360

Dana7360

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2014
Messages
14,989
Reaction score
13,221
Points
2,405
it doesn't matter --you and them are hypocrites--you use cars/electric/etc .....


You obviously didn't read the article.

This is natural gas.

It doesn't go into the tank of cars.

No one is a hypocrite for making a company follow the law. They violated the law. They didn't adequately balance public benefits and the adverse impacts.

The law requires they do. The pipe company didn't.

Don't fault the environmentalists for forcing the pipe company to follow the law.

All the judges and the environmentalists were doing is following the law.

Horror of horrors.

Just because someone enforces the law doesn't mean they now have to stop driving a car.

Especially since this is NATURAL GAS. Not gas that goes into the tank of a vehicle.

Read the article. Stop being so lazy.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
63,915
Reaction score
21,739
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
43,851
Reaction score
19,849
Points
2,300
You obviously didn't read the article.

This is natural gas.

It doesn't go into the tank of cars.

No one is a hypocrite for making a company follow the law. They violated the law. They didn't adequately balance public benefits and the adverse impacts.

The law requires they do. The pipe company didn't.

Don't fault the environmentalists for forcing the pipe company to follow the law.

All the judges and the environmentalists were doing is following the law.

Horror of horrors.

Just because someone enforces the law doesn't mean they now have to stop driving a car.

Especially since this is NATURAL GAS. Not gas that goes into the tank of a vehicle.

Read the article. Stop being so lazy.
hahahahhahah--you do not understand the point
1. you want to reduce energy supplies - stupid
2. you and them are hypocrites by driving cars--cars mess up the environment --very simple--yet you did not understand it
DUH
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
63,915
Reaction score
21,739
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually

White 6

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
17,917
Reaction score
10,230
Points
1,140
I think you're missing reading the article.

From the article:

The Environmental Defense Fund contended in a lawsuit that the pipeline harms land in its path, and that taxpayers will foot the bill for decades to come.

In June, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that FERC “failed to adequately balance public benefits and adverse impacts” in approving the pipeline. The panel also wrote that evidence showed the pipeline “is not being built to serve increasing load demand and that there is no indication the new pipeline will lead to cost savings.”
You missed my point. If it is up and operating, there is no ongoing damage to the environment possible, as it just sits there performing it's function. Shutting it down for spite after the fact, because they could not get through the courts in time to prevent it being built is stupid, wasteful, and would create environmental damage in removing it. Not everything an environmental group says when a project is contemplated, equally applies after it is completed and operating, when it comes to pipelines just sitting there performing their function. I assure you there is no caribou migration path interrupted, or continued stream damage.
 

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
57,287
Reaction score
19,093
Points
2,260
Actually yes there was.

It's not at the beginning of the article but towards the end.

From the article.

The Environmental Defense Fund contended in a lawsuit that the pipeline harms land in its path, and that taxpayers will foot the bill for decades to come.

In June, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that FERC “failed to adequately balance public benefits and adverse impacts” in approving the pipeline. The panel also wrote that evidence showed the pipeline “is not being built to serve increasing load demand and that there is no indication the new pipeline will lead to cost savings.”
"Harms land" in what way?
 
OP
Dana7360

Dana7360

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2014
Messages
14,989
Reaction score
13,221
Points
2,405
"Harms land" in what way?


I don't know. I just copied and pasted a portion of the article.

I know about as much about it as the article says.

The judges said the company “failed to adequately balance public benefits and adverse impacts”

The environmental group had to have presented evidence to back up their claims for the conservative judges to rule that way.

Judges have a document/proof fetish. They won't believe anything unless credible and honest proof/documentation is provided.

My experience is no conservative judge is going to rule in favor of an environmental group unless there's very rock solid evidence to force them to do so.

I think the best way to find out is to read all the documents in the case.
 

Golfing Gator

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
55,141
Reaction score
9,157
Points
2,070
Location
Midwest of America
If that is the case, as simple as that, why would Roberts go along with it?

All Roberts did was refuse to hear the case, not really going along with it.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top