Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

Another day...another Obama appointed judge reversing a Trump policy

Posted on 8/13/20 at 3:05 pm
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
98602 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 3:05 pm
This time? Interpretation of Migratory Bird Treaty Act

In short, Trump Administration issued rule that the penalties under the law were only applicable to the intentional killing of protected birds - not ones that might be inadvertently killed due to industrial activities.

Judge says NO.

Of course, the greens are all giddy and libs are happy because OMB, but guess what industry is about to get it up the arse with a nail studded baseball bat?

Of you said "windmill farms" you would be absolutely correct.
Posted by The Maj
Member since Sep 2016
27072 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 3:08 pm to
Oh the irony... I imagine solar farms have issues with birds as well...
Posted by IslandBuckeye
Boca Chica, Panama
Member since Apr 2018
10067 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 3:09 pm to
OMB gives them enough rope and we can all laugh as they go down.
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67046 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 3:17 pm to
quote:

In short, Trump Administration issued rule that the penalties under the law were only applicable to the intentional killing of protected birds - not ones that might be inadvertently killed due to industrial activities.


TBH, this is a huge departure from how the law has been interpreted by all previous administrations. While I agree with the policy change, I don't think Trump actually has the unilateral authority to do what he wanted to here.

Changing the definition of a "taking" would be a massive watershed moment in administrative law. As someone who supports making such a change, I don't think Trump will succeed without Congressional action.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
98602 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 6:55 pm to
quote:

TBH, this is a huge departure from how the law has been interpreted by all previous administrations


So
fricking
What?

Prior Presidents aren't kings (regardless if what John Roberts says).

Still, this will be a fricking bludgeon against wind energy.
Posted by BayBengal9
Bay St. Louis, MS
Member since Nov 2019
4171 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 6:59 pm to
quote:

Changing the definition of a "taking" would be a massive watershed moment in administrative law. 


Who gives a frick? Administrative law is all bullshite anyway... some liberal nerd bureaucrat sitting in a basement at the EPA just making shite up that NO ONE voted on or gets any say in.
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67046 posts
Posted on 8/13/20 at 9:05 pm to
Because changes in administrative law are based on whether or not the administration’s interpretation of the law is reasonable. If the interpretation being offered by a new administrator is remarkably different, then they will have to either prove:
A. That their interpretation is reasonable because that’s what the drafters meant it to mean; or
B. That research and data supports changing the interpretation to what the new administration desires, i.e. that it’s reasonable policy.

Thus, big changes are typically frowned upon by judges.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram