- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
![locked post](https://www.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/lock.gif)
Give em the boot website from LOGA..........
Posted on 3/14/14 at 9:13 am
Posted on 3/14/14 at 9:13 am
Anyone take a look at this? Puts out a lot of claims against the trial lawyers who are suing O&G companies.
LINK
LINK
Posted on 3/14/14 at 9:16 am to TJG210
This entire thing is interesting.
Senator Robert Adley from Benton is the ultimate hypocrit in all of this. He is fighting this because he said a judge took money from some of the parties in the case. He is an oil man. He has taken money from people in the case and plenty of it. He is using his political power to protect his money.
If those companies said they were going to fix what they tore up when they got their contracts or permits then they should be sued if they didn't. Now if we could only sue the Army Corps of Engineers. They are the ultimate fools.
Senator Robert Adley from Benton is the ultimate hypocrit in all of this. He is fighting this because he said a judge took money from some of the parties in the case. He is an oil man. He has taken money from people in the case and plenty of it. He is using his political power to protect his money.
If those companies said they were going to fix what they tore up when they got their contracts or permits then they should be sued if they didn't. Now if we could only sue the Army Corps of Engineers. They are the ultimate fools.
Posted on 3/14/14 at 9:20 am to lsu13lsu
quote:
Senator Robert Adley from Benton is the ultimate hypocrit in all of this. He is fighting this because he said a judge took money from some of the parties in the case. He is an oil man. He has taken money from people in the case and plenty of it. He is using his political power to protect his money.
Regardless of his motivations, if the judge is dirty, the judge should get bounced.
Posted on 3/14/14 at 9:22 am to udtiger
quote:
FACTS
LOST WAGES IN LOUISIANA
Over the past eight years, the economic impact of Legacy Lawsuits and decreased drilling activity has led to a decrease in drilling expenditures and the loss of over $1.5 billion in wages for those employed directly and indirectly in the oil and gas industry.
Only I can't find the study that determines this "fact."
Political propaganda is political.
This post was edited on 3/14/14 at 9:24 am
Posted on 3/14/14 at 9:23 am to udtiger
quote:
Regardless of his motivations, if the judge is dirty, the judge should get bounced.
Then Senator Robert Adley should bounce himself and let someone else champion his legislation/complaints. He is dirty as hell if the judge is.
If they companies are guilty they are guilty. No matter who the judge.
Posted on 3/14/14 at 9:27 am to BigJim
quote:
Only I can't find the study that determines this "fact."
Neither can LOGA:
LOGA President Clueless As To Why They Filed Suit
Posted on 3/14/14 at 9:31 am to TJG210
Louisiana likes to think it can have everything.
Levees and keep Mississippi River in tact for shipping/industry.
Let MS river deposit sediment along the coast, as intended.
Stay out of oil companies' way and let them run rampant along the coast.
Protect the wetlands and seafood industry.
At some point maybe we should decide that we can't always have it both ways. Or maybe not. The federal government pays for most of it anyway.
Levees and keep Mississippi River in tact for shipping/industry.
Let MS river deposit sediment along the coast, as intended.
Stay out of oil companies' way and let them run rampant along the coast.
Protect the wetlands and seafood industry.
At some point maybe we should decide that we can't always have it both ways. Or maybe not. The federal government pays for most of it anyway.
This post was edited on 3/14/14 at 9:34 am
Posted on 3/14/14 at 9:35 am to Asgard Device
quote:
The federal government pays for most of it anyway.
The taxpayer (some of us) pay for it.
Posted on 3/14/14 at 9:39 am to Asgard Device
quote:
Stay out of oil companies' way and let them run rampant along the coast.
This is kind of silly. How exactly are they running rampant along the coast? The canals that were caught many years back were done so without the knowledge that what they were doing was ultimately going to hurt the ecosystem. Hell, one could argue the Federal Government has done way more damage than the oil companies by building all of the levees.
Posted on 3/14/14 at 9:42 am to TJG210
quote:
This is kind of silly. How exactly are they running rampant along the coast?
Uh.
quote:
Hell, one could argue the Federal Government has done way more damage than the oil companies by building all of the levees.
Assuming you don't want the levees to be dismantled, you just proved my point.
Posted on 3/14/14 at 9:57 am to Asgard Device
quote:
Assuming you don't want the levees to be dismantled, you just proved my point.
It doesn't need to be dismantled but areas/rivers need to be flooded when the river rises every year or so.
The Army Corps of Engineers were so arrogant to think the levees only policy was the only policy.
Posted on 3/14/14 at 10:03 am to Asgard Device
quote:
Uh.
Please explain.......are oil and gas companies still digging canals?
Posted on 3/14/14 at 10:10 am to TJG210
quote:
Please explain.......are oil and gas companies still digging canals?
I am pretty sure they are then instead of fixing the canals they are buying marsh credits from land banks. I could be wrong about that.
Marsh credits are a real thing that people are profiting on and created by our government.
Posted on 3/14/14 at 10:19 am to lsu13lsu
quote:
Marsh credits are a real thing that people are profiting on and created by our government.
In that case the liability should be transferred to the government to clean up, no?
Posted on 3/14/14 at 10:37 am to TJG210
quote:
In that case the liability should be transferred to the government to clean up, no?
No.
Posted on 3/14/14 at 11:15 am to lsu13lsu
quote:
Senator Robert Adley from Benton is the ultimate hypocrit in all of this. He is fighting this because he said a judge took money from some of the parties in the case. He is an oil man. He has taken money from people in the case and plenty of it. He is using his political power to protect his money.
The difference is one is a judge and the other a politician.
One is supposed to remain unbiased and the other doesn't have that restriction.
Apples and Oranges.
Posted on 3/14/14 at 11:25 am to LSULaw2009
quote:
One is supposed to remain unbiased and the other doesn't have that restriction
It isnt apples to oranges to Louisiana residents. The problem in Louisiana has always been politicians looking out for their paycheck first. If anyone can trust this guy to make a great decision for their state then everyone can trust this judge.
If this judge is doing anything unethical he/she will be forced aside. Their are laws and ethics boards already in place to prevent this.
Will anyone force this state senator aside because he is trying to line his pockets?
Posted on 3/14/14 at 11:25 am to LSULaw2009
quote:
The difference is one is a judge and the other a politician.
One is supposed to remain unbiased and the other doesn't have that restriction.
Apples and Oranges.
The US Supreme Court has said that it is not a conflict of interest for an elected judge who received campaign contributions to preside over a case of one of the donors unless the circumstances are extreme.
quote:
Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy called the appearance of a conflict of interest so "extreme" that Benjamin's failure to recuse himself constituted a violation of the plaintiff's Constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Kennedy noted that not every campaign contribution by a litigant creates a probability of bias that requires a judge's recusal. Justice Kennedy wrote, "We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias — based on objective and reasonable perceptions — when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent."
"The inquiry," Justice Kennedy wrote, "centers on the contribution's relative size in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the campaign, the total amount spent in the election, and the apparent effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election." Applying that test, Justice Kennedy ruled for the Court that "Blankenship's significant and disproportionate influence—coupled with the temporal relationship between the election and the pending case—"' "offer a possible temptation to the average . . . judge to . . . lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true."' "On these extreme facts the probability of actual bias rises to an unconstitutional level."
In holding that Justice Benjamin's participation in the case was a violation of due process, the Court made no finding of actual bias by Justice Benjamin: "In other words, based on the facts presented by Caperton, Justice Benjamin conducted a probing search into his actual motives and inclinations; and he found none to be improper. We do not question his subjective findings of impartiality and propriety. Nor do we determine whether there was actual bias."
Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009)
Posted on 3/14/14 at 11:27 am to FalseProphet
quote:
The US Supreme Court has said that it is not a conflict of interest for an elected judge who received campaign contributions to preside over a case of one of the donors unless the circumstances are extreme.
I am sure Senator Adley knows what is better for us than the Supreme Court. Whatever this guy thinks has to be what is best for everyone in the state. Do not worry how much money he makes in the oil and gas industry. He wants what is best for everyone.
Posted on 3/14/14 at 12:43 pm to lsu13lsu
quote:
If this judge is doing anything unethical he/she will be forced aside.
Well...theoretically.
However, sometimes judge's have certain advantages that tend to make the Judicial Commission wary of taking decisive action - like, say, being a black female that has a penchant for suing to get what she wants (like, maybe, creating the specially designed judicial seat she currently holds through a discrimination lawsuit).
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)