The Advocate, true to other editorials, fully backs AG Landry and the recent court decision that went against the oil leasing ban.
A victory for Attorney General Jeff Landry in the U.S. District Court in Monroe is a solid first step in challenging the economically damaging decisions of President Joe Biden restricting oil and gas exploration. Economically damaging, to Louisiana and the United States but also to the world, as America is an energy exporter vital to the international economy. Biden seeks to limit leasing of federal lands and offshore waters for oil and gas exploration and production.U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty, in a suit brought by Landry and GOP attorneys general from other energy states, said the administration doesn’t have the legal right to stop leasing federal lands for production without approval from Congress. We welcome the objections to what seemed to us, from the beginning, as a highly political decision by Biden to target energy production during his first days in office.
theadvocate.com
Political? Yes, because a democrat did it and yes it hurts the world and country but more on the climate side than the oil side. There are other economic options for Louisiana that they will have to, eventually, move to as oil is not as powerful as it once was.
Federal attorneys read the law differently and clearly this matter is headed to higher courts. It is a familiar scenario, as Democratic attorneys general filed suits over many issues in which former President Donald Trump acted through sweeping executive orders, instead of seeking approval from Congress for new policies. We don’t know if Judge Doughty thinks so, but we know this is no way to run a country. And that applies to attorneys general filing lawsuits freely on their political objections to national policies, instead of tending to their day jobs in their own states. We hope that the judge’s preliminary injunction leads to not only a reasoned approach to energy laws, but to a larger reassessment of the role of Congress and the administrative procedures that ought to limit presidents’ rights to act like little kings.
Lawyers read different interpretations into laws all the time so this is not new. Politics is not what climate change should have devolved into and that is the problem with this case. One side sees the need to protect the world and looks forward. The other wants to go back to when oil was king, looking backward. We need forward looking actions.
