Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Danny on June 23, 2010, 10:08:52 AM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100622/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2771 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100622/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2771)
surprised??
The federal judge who overturned Barack Obama's offshore drilling moratorium reported owning stock in numerous companies involved in the offshore oil industry — including Transocean, which leased the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig to BP prior to its April 20 explosion in the Gulf of Mexico — according to 2008 financial disclosure reports.
U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman issued a preliminary injunction today barring the enforcement of the president's proposed six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling, arguing that the ban is too broad.
According to Feldman's 2008 financial disclosure form, posted online by Judicial Watch [pdf], the judge owned stock in Transocean, as well as five other companies that are either directly or indirectly involved in the offshore drilling business.
It's not surprising that Feldman, who is a judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, has invested in the offshore drilling business — an Associated Press investigation found earlier this month that more than half the federal judges in the districts affected by the BP spill have financial ties to the oil and gas industry.
The report discloses that in 2008, Judge Feldman held less than $15,000 worth of stock in Transocean, as well as similar amounts (federal rules only require that judges report a range of values ) in Hercules Offshore, ATP Oil and Gas, and Parker Drilling. All of those companies offer contract offshore drilling services and operate offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Judge Feldman also owned between $15,000 and $50,000 in notes offered by Ocean Energy, Inc., a company that offers "concept design and manufacturing design of submersible drilling rigs," according to its website. None of the companies were direct parties to the lawsuit seeking to overturn the ban.
Judge Feldman did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
— John Cook is a senior national reporter/blogger for Yahoo! News.
-
Funny how you failed to mention that Soros (Obama's Puppet Master) is slated to make $2 BILLION DOLLARS as a result of Obama's moritorium. ::) ::) ::)
-
so danny and 33 have just shown there are people on both sides capitalizing off of this mess.
The only problem is that one is a private citizen and investor (Soros) and the other is a public official sworn to uphold the constitution. You can't blame an investor for it - but a judge? He should recuse himself and let the next judge make this call.
-
Funny how you failed to mention that Soros (Obama's Puppet Master) is slated to make $2 BILLION DOLLARS as a result of Obama's moritorium. ::) ::) ::)
let's not hijack the thread 338 ;)
-
$15,000! Wow, that's A LOT of money! You far-left tards are beyond pathetic.
Now if it was $1.5 million or something along those lines, you might have a point but not with $15,000. Talk about grasping at straws in desperation. ::)
-
$15,000! Wow, that's A LOT of money! You far-left tards are beyond pathetic.
Now if it was $1.5 million or something along those lines, you might have a point but not with $15,000. Talk about grasping at straws in desperation. ::)
$15,000 is betyond nothing for most professional people and does not change the fact that Obama/Salazar knowingly lied to the court in their submissions regarding the expert testimony they put forward to the court.
-
$15,000 is betyond nothing for most professional people and does not change the fact that Obama/Salazar knowingly lied to the court in their submissions regarding the expert testimony they put forward to the court.
It's much more likely this judge was biased because, you know, $15,000 is A LOT of money in terms of stock investments. ::)
Amazing how the far-left is now resorting to CTs to save their God and deflect attention from them fuck-up that has been the governments handling of this crisis.
I can't believe this shit is even front-page news.
-
$15,000! Wow, that's A LOT of money! You far-left tards are beyond pathetic.
Now if it was $1.5 million or something along those lines, you might have a point but not with $15,000. Talk about grasping at straws in desperation. ::)
who's more desperate here, me posting a link from a valid online source and NOT offering my point of view yet, or you trying to discredit the source of information ::)
-
so danny and 33 have just shown there are people on both sides capitalizing off of this mess.
The only problem is that one is a private citizen and investor (Soros) and the other is a public official sworn to uphold the constitution. You can't blame an investor for it - but a judge? He should recuse himself and let the next judge make this call.
Then Salazar should be fired RIGHT AWAY!!He put out a report,had experts sign it THEN AFTER they signed it he added in they supported the drilling ban.THATS one of the major things the judge ruled on.The lies of Salazar.Why is this guy still in the administration.He is a PROVEN liar and lied to further Obamas agenda.
-
who's more desperate here, me posting a link from a valid online source and NOT offering my point of view yet, or you trying to discredit the source of information ::)
Please, we all know why you're posting this link, my "I can't disclose the communist country I came from because they're tracking me" chum. Might as well come out with it and say that you think this judge had a conflict of interest, because as we all know, a $15,000 investment is a huge sum of money.
-
Danny: do you agree that Obama/Salazar misled the court on the expert testimony?
-
$15,000! Wow, that's A LOT of money! You far-left tards are beyond pathetic.
Now if it was $1.5 million or something along those lines, you might have a point but not with $15,000. Talk about grasping at straws in desperation. ::)
at what # between 1.5 mil and 15k does the number matter?
If he only owns 1.4 million, it's not biggie? Only 500k?
IMO, if he owns any oil stocks, he should recuse himself. Or risk appeal at the higher level. Which gives obama time to impeach him by picking which judge gets to hear the case.
Way to taint the decision, judge :(
-
Danny: do you agree that Obama/Salazar misled the court on the expert testimony?
i don't know anything about that so I can't have an opinion
-
at what # between 1.5 mil and 15k does the number matter?
If he only owns 1.4 million, it's not biggie? Only 500k?
IMO, if he owns any oil stocks, he should recuse himself. Or risk appeal at the higher level. Which gives obama time to impeach him by picking which judge gets to hear the case.
Way to taint the decision, judge :(
::)
Yet you are silent on the soros stuff as to Obama's motives in doing everything he can to destroy the Gulf?
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
at what # between 1.5 mil and 15k does the number matter?
If he only owns 1.4 million, it's not biggie? Only 500k?
IMO, if he owns any oil stocks, he should recuse himself. Or risk appeal at the higher level. Which gives obama time to impeach him by picking which judge gets to hear the case.
Way to taint the decision, judge :(
So now judges are only allowed to invest in certain companies? How authoritarian of you.
$15,000 = a drop in the bucket and I would venture to guess nowhere near a big enough sum for a judge to risk his career over. But prove me wrong. The burden of proof is on you tinfoil hat wearers to prove that he wasn't objective, not the other way around.
-
So now judges are only allowed to invest in certain companies? How authoritarian of you.
$15,000 = a drop in the bucket and I would venture to guess nowhere near a big enough sum for a judge to risk his career over. But prove me wrong. The burden of proof is on you tinfoil hat wearers to prove that he wasn't objective, not the other way around.
I want just one of these people to tell me yes or no if Obama did or did not mislead the Court on the experts' recomendations as the plaintiffs asserted.
Remember, 7 plaintiffs brought this action, not one.
Salazer knowingly lied to the court on this.
-
Please, we all know why you're posting this link, my "I can't disclose the communist country I came from because they're tracking me" chum. Might as well come out with it and say that you think this judge had a conflict of interest, because as we all know, a $15,000 investment is a huge sum of money.
you just proved you're a fuckin liar for putting words in my mouth. Why don't you post my qoute where I was saying anything resembling that???? It's probably too much for your thick skull to comprehend anybody"s reasons for not putting unwanted info on the web but that doesn't really surprise me. You believe whatever the fuck you want who gives a shit, but let's not hijack the thread.He is supposed to be a man of the law,you know IMPARTIAL. If you are too fukin riled up in your conspiracy theories and fail to see that be my guest. :-\
-
you just proved you're a fuckin liar for putting words in my mouth. Why don't you post my qoute where I was saying anything resembling that???? It's probably too much for your thick skull to comprehend anybody"s reasons for not putting unwanted info on the web but that doesn't really surprise me. You believe whatever the fuck you want who gives a shit, but let's not hijack the thread.He is supposed to be a man of the law,you know IMPARTIAL. If you are too fukin riled up in your conspiracy theories and fail to see that be my guest. :-\
Can you prove that he wasn't impartial? Or would he only be impartial if he didn't rule against Obama's moratorium? I see no reason to think that he wasn't impartial. ::)
-
a conflict clearly exists anytime a judge makes a decision which will directly affect a company - of which stock he owns.
Because of this conflict, and the fact it can lead to appeal later, the judge should recuse himself.
If you want me to "prove he was biased", well, I can't get inside another man's mind. But in that case, you can't "prove" much of anything. All we can do is eliminiate chances of potential bias where a judge's checkbook will directly be affected by a decision he makes.
-
a conflict clearly exists anytime a judge makes a decision which will directly affect a company - of which stock he owns.
Because of this conflict, and the fact it can lead to appeal later, the judge should recuse himself.
If you want me to "prove he was biased", well, I can't get inside another man's mind. But in that case, you can't "prove" much of anything. All we can do is eliminiate chances of potential bias where a judge's checkbook will directly be affected by a decision he makes.
So then you agree that Obama's edict will harm American companies and workers and the share prices?
-
Can you prove that he wasn't impartial? Or would he only be impartial if he didn't rule against Obama's moratorium?I see no reason to think that he wasn't impartial. ::)
It would be fair to have this before a judge that at least doesn't have any ties with either one of the parties to begin with, would you disagree with that?
-
I don't think it's my job to tell another person which stocks he can or cannot buy because of his job.
Fact of the matter is that you people wouldn't be crying if he had upheld the ban. Now that he ruled against it, you're crying that he was biased on the notion of him owning a drop in the bucket worth of stocks. No thanks.
And for that matter, if you're going to complain about being impartial, you might want to take a look at all the Goldman money that went to Obama. Or are we still playing double standards when it's fitting? ;)
Either way, the burden of proof is on you guys to prove that he was impartial. Not for me to acknowledge that he was because of some stock he's held for longer than this incident.
-
So then you agree that Obama's edict will harm American companies and workers and the share prices?
are we now changing the thread from judicial bias to the effects of obama's policies?
You're a lawyer, 333386. If a judge who owned stock in some bullshit "green" cap/trade company just shut down Gulf drilling, you'd be shitting golf balls right now.
What say you on the potential for bias (regardless of this or any position or ruling)?
-
are we now changing the thread from judicial bias to the effects of obama's policies?
You're a lawyer, 333386. If a judge who owned stock in some bullshit "green" cap/trade company just shut down Gulf drilling, you'd be shitting golf balls right now.
What say you on the potential for bias (regardless of this or any position or ruling)?
Is this judge more or less biased than Obama is towards BP and Goldman given the millions they dumped into his campaign?
-
I don't think it's my job to tell another person which stocks he can and cannot buy because of his job.
it's not your job or my job. It's been determined long ago:
Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, refers to the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer. Applicable statutes or canons of ethics may provide standards for recusal in a given proceeding or matter. Providing that the judge or presiding officer must be free from disabling conflicts of interest makes the fairness of the proceedings less likely to be questioned.
Laws or court rules provide for recusal of judges. Although the details vary, the following are nearly universal grounds for recusal.
The judge has personal or financial interest in the outcome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification
-
are we now changing the thread from judicial bias to the effects of obama's policies?
You're a lawyer, 333386. If a judge who owned stock in some bullshit "green" cap/trade company just shut down Gulf drilling, you'd be shitting golf balls right now.
What say you on the potential for bias (regardless of this or any position or ruling)?
I think if the only stock holding are all energy stocks, than maybe we should look at it, however 15k is not alot of money and if itsa a tiny amount allocated amongs many other holdings, then Danny's and yours' complaints are unfounded.
-
Is this judge more or less biased than Obama is towards BP and Goldman given the millions they dumped into his campaign?
Goldman, Soros, and everyone else you're bitching about = PRIVATE sector. Scumbags as they are, they have the ability to act in their own vested financial interest.
judge = PUBLIC APOINTEE.
I know for a fact you're a lawyer... so you "get this"... but I think the end result, and your emotion attached to it, is causing you to embrace his decision and excuse what is obviously grounds for self recusal. He's probably giftwrapping a turnover on appeal too.
-
I think if the only stock holding are all energy stocks, than maybe we should look at it, however 15k is not alot of money and if itsa a tiny amount allocated amongs many other holdings, then Danny's and yours' complaints are unfounded.
So - if the judge has only $16k of total personal investment holdings, then it's wrong. But if he has a million, it's cool?
What # in the middle is your cutoff? Shades of gray here bro...
-
I think if the only stock holding are all energy stocks, than maybe we should look at it, however 15k is not alot of money and if itsa a tiny amount allocated amongs many other holdings, then Danny's and yours' complaints are unfounded.
Well said. If this was his entire portfolio, then their argument might have some water. Thumping your chest because he happens to hold some stock only makes them look childish and shows that they're desperate to discredit the judge because they didn't like his decision.
Goldman, Soros, and everyone else you're bitching about = PRIVATE sector. Scumbags as they are, they have the ability to act in their own vested financial interest.
judge = PUBLIC APOINTEE.
I know for a fact you're a lawyer... so you "get this"... but I think the end result, and your emotion attached to it, is causing you to embrace his decision and excuse what is obviously grounds for self recusal. He's probably giftwrapping a turnover on appeal too.
Is there a law that says a judge can't hold stock in oil companies? Who are you to tell him which company's stocks are OK for him to hold?
-
Is this judge more or less biased than Obama is towards BP and Goldman given the millions they dumped into his campaign?
ALL politicians are corrupt. Judges on the other hand should try and successfully most of them manage to stay away from corruption, in this case he should have simply stated he has a conflict of interest.That"s the reason we trust our system.
-
Is there a law that says a judge can't hold stock in oil companies? Who are you to tell him which company's stocks are OK for him to hold?
Of course not. I'm saying any judge who is to make a ruling on a company whose stock HE OWNS... should pass on this case and take the next one. You know, like if the defendant was accused of stealing the judge's car, for example.
-
ALL politicians are corrupt. Judges on the other hand should try and successfully most of them manage to stay away from corruption, in this case he should have simply stated he has a conflict of interest.That"s the reason we trust our system.
That's simply impossible if if the judge has a diversified portfolio. Should he recuse himself from every single case where he possibly holds stocks in a related field?
So any judge with stocks should recuse themselves from a case involving stock issues? ::) ::)
-
That's simply impossible if if the judge has a diversified portfolio. Should he recuse himself from every single case where he possibly holds stocks in a related field?
So any judge with stocks should recuse themselves from a case involving stock issues? ::) ::)
Until you can demosntrate the judge's holdings in this company were inconsequential, he should recuse.
What were his total holdings?
-
Well said. If this was his entire portfolio, then their argument might have some water. Thumping your chest because he happens to hold some stock only makes them look childish and shows that they're desperate to discredit the judge because they didn't like his decision.
Is there a law that says a judge can't hold stock in oil companies? Who are you to tell him which company's stocks are OK for him to hold?
that'snot the point at all. he can hold as many stocks as he wants in any company, however if a case comes before him where he has a conflict of interest it is clear he would tilt his judgement one way. I'm talkin about any case involving any judge in general. there are thousands of judges, why not recuse yourself when you know your judgement will create a shitstorm and probably be appealed especially in such a high profile case? I still can't believe 338 who's a lawyer doesn't even acknowledge the possibility for serious controversy here.
-
That's simply impossible if if the judge has a diversified portfolio. Should he recuse himself from every single case where he possibly holds stocks in a related field?
So any judge with stocks should recuse themselves from a case involving stock issues? ::) ::)
Great points. 240 and co. are pretty much implying that judges shouldn't be allowed to purchase stock. Quite authoritarian, if you ask me.
What were his total holdings?
So you don't even know? Great argument you're presenting here.
-
that'snot the point at all. he can hold as many stocks as he wants in any company, however if a case comes before him where he has a conflict of interest it is clear he would tilt his judgement one way. I'm talkin about any case involving any judge in general. there are thousands of judges, why not recuse yourself when you know your judgement will create a shitstorm and probably be appealed especially in such a high profile case? I still can't believe 338 who's a lawyer doesn't even acknowledge the possibility for serious controversy here.
Because its not a big issue and just because the cry babies at DU are screaming about it does not make it so.
And no, its not an inherent conflict of interest. I'm sure if Obama's lawyers feel it is so, they will make it a point on appeal.
So go back to DU and find other nonsense we can debunk.
-
Because its not a big issue and just because the cry babies at DU are screaming about it does not make it so.
And no, its not an inherent conflict of interest. I'm sure if Obama's lawyers feel it is so, they will make it a point on appeal.
So go back to DU and find other nonsense we can debunk.
What's DU? seriously.. ???
-
What's DU? seriously.. ???
Democratic Underground
Just ask Blacken - its where he gets EVERY single youtube video he posts here. I know what he is going to post before he does.
-
Democratic Underground
Just ask Blacken - its where he gets EVERY single youtube video he posts here. I know what he is going to post before he does.
He might get his stuff from there, can't accuse me of doing the same since I didn't even know what that thing was ;D ;D
-
He might get his stuff from there, can't accuse me of doing the same since I didn't even know what that thing was ;D ;D
You can thank me later for sending you there. Me, I can't stand more than a minute or two at best over there.
-
You can thank me later for sending you there. Me, I can't stand more than a minute or two at best over there.
No thanks, I don't need even more brainwashing than what I'm already subjected to. ;D
GO USA!! this should be declared a "truce" day on Getbig between left and right to celebrate the USA soccer team huge victory. ;D
-
No thanks, I don't need even more brainwashing than what I'm already subjected to. ;D
GO USA!! this should be declared a "truce" day on Getbig between left and right to celebrate the USA soccer team huge victory. ;D
Danny, don't me wrong, we may disagree on stuff, but like i say to KC, I enjoy the back and forth. Its not personal, ever, unless you start saying you want soldiers to die and want to blow loads on babies.
-
$15,000! Wow, that's A LOT of money! You far-left tards are beyond pathetic.
Now if it was $1.5 million or something along those lines, you might have a point but not with $15,000. Talk about grasping at straws in desperation. ::)
$15,000? He probably wipes his butt with $15,000.
-
$15,000? He probably wipes his butt with $15,000.
:D
(http://poplicks.com/images/money-toilet-paper.jpg)
-
:D
(http://poplicks.com/images/money-toilet-paper.jpg)
;D
-
i don't think the whole stock thing affected his decision. He's a judge he made the decision based on what he felt was legal, not what his wallet said. it's 15k ffs. A pittance. If this guy had his whole retirement portfolio tied up in a company affected we may have a story, but he doesn't so we don't.