Obama to reject Keystone XL

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

From what I read, Obama wanted a proper study to ensure the impacts across a number of issues - environmental concerns were ONE of them, but not the only one.

The Congress tried to force Obama to sign it quickly and Obama did frankly what I would have done and rejected it.

[anvi]

I wrote a column on this for Monday.  The Republicans screwed this one up.

Do you have a link to the column, Inks?  I'd be interested in reading it.  Thanks!

[dead0man]

I still don't understand the opposition to this.  Do you think moving oil without the use of a pipeline is safer for the environment?

[CARLHAYDEN]

From what I read, Obama wanted a proper study to ensure the impacts across a number of issues - environmental concerns were ONE of them, but not the only one.

The Congress tried to force Obama to sign it quickly and Obama did frankly what I would have done and rejected it.

Then either you read wrong, or read an inaccurate account.

[Joe Republic]

From what I read, Obama wanted a proper study to ensure the impacts across a number of issues - environmental concerns were ONE of them, but not the only one.

The Congress tried to force Obama to sign it quickly and Obama did frankly what I would have done and rejected it.

Then either you read wrong, or read an inaccurate account.

Witnessing your interference in serious threads is like watching a parody of the McLaughlin Group.

[krazen1211]

I'm usually as pro-Obama as they come, but I so don't get this. We need oil. Granted, it's a finite resource and not a permanent solution to our energy needs, but it would be very helpful for right now. And given how much of the price of oil is speculation, it would be most excellent to depress the price and screw Venezuela, Russia, Saudi Arabia, et al. I don't know what they Dems are thinking on this one.

Agreed. We need that oil, even if we were to somehow accelerate renewable energy projects. We would still need oil for many years to keep the economy running. Bad move by Obama.

The oil is coming regardless as long as its profitable to drill. It's just a matter of who gets a share of the profits behind it; us or Canada/China.

It's cheaper for Transcanada to pipeline this oil down to the Gulf than it is to pipeline it to any Canadian port.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I wrote a column on this for Monday.  The Republicans screwed this one up.

Do you have a link to the column, Inks?  I'd be interested in reading it.  Thanks!

It probably won't be up until Monday.  I've already got one in line for tomorrow's issue on Michigan's State of the State, but here's what I wrote (I hate the 500 word limit--it's so hard to consolidate this issue to 500 words):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I wrote a column on this for Monday.  The Republicans screwed this one up.

Do you have a link to the column, Inks?  I'd be interested in reading it.  Thanks!

It probably won't be up until Monday.  I've already got one in line for tomorrow's issue on Michigan's State of the State, but here's what I wrote (I hate the 500 word limit--it's so hard to consolidate this issue to 500 words):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Inks,

You REALLY don't understand American law.

Congress retains authority to overrule the decision of Obama against the Keystone pipline.  So your statement that: "Congress has no power to tell the President to issue a permit, because Congress has no regulatory power over pipeline permits," is simply incorrect.

Further, you assertion that Obama would have approved of the project if it was sufficently delayed is pure nonsense, and false.  Obama was NOT "open to considering the pipeline," but simply wanted to delay its rejection until after the election.

You did get one thing correct in your statement that "The project is a good project." 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No, Congress doesn't retain the power to overrule Obama, at least not under current Federal Court rulings.  They could challenge it to the Supreme Court, but I'd expect them to lose that case.

[CARLHAYDEN]

No, Congress doesn't retain the power to overrule Obama, at least not under current Federal Court rulings.  They could challenge it to the Supreme Court, but I'd expect them to lose that case.

Please cite those "rulings."

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Sisseton v. United States Department of State and Sierra Club v. Clinton, and Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Department of State.

None of them are SCOTUS cases, but, again, I'd be willing to bet the SCOTUS would side with the President.