Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Court: NRC In Violation For Not Ruling On Yucca Mountain

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the waste-not-want-not dept.

Power 258

schwit1 sends this quote from an AP report: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] to complete the licensing process and approve or reject the Energy Department's application for a never-completed waste storage site at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. In a sharply worded opinion, the court said the nuclear agency was 'simply flouting the law' when it allowed the Obama administration to continue plans to close the proposed waste site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The action goes against a federal law designating Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste repository. 'The president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections,' Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in a majority opinion (PDF), which was joined Judge A. Raymond Randolph. Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland dissented. The appeals court said the case has important implications for the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. 'It is no overstatement to say that our constitutional system of separation of powers would be significantly altered if we were to allow executive and independent agencies to disregard federal law in the manner asserted in this case by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,' Kavanaugh wrote. 'The commission is simply defying a law enacted by Congress ... without any legal basis.'"

cancel ×

258 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yet another anti-Obama article (0)

mi (197448) | about a year ago | (#44558885)

What's wrong with you, people? How could over a half of you be so wrong less than a year ago?

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44558911)

If the supreme court wants to keep Yucca Mountain running, they can head out to Nevada and run it themselves!

or Obama could follow the laws he proposes (4, Interesting)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#44559127)

Or the Obama administration could you know, follow the law.
I couldn't believe he unilaterally decided to ignore Obamacare, the law named after him!

Re:or Obama could follow the laws he proposes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559267)

So the joke's on me: I was going to tell you to read up on Andrew Jackson's interactions with the Supreme court [answers.com] . But apparently his remark was far more measured than mine.

Re:or Obama could follow the laws he proposes (5, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year ago | (#44560207)

and he decided

-he could selectively enforce immigration with no real legal backing

-he could create extensions and exemptions for NCLB requirements when the law has no such provisions

-he could simply not determine if a coup had taken place in Egypt so that he could continue sending your tax dollars to them in the form of tanks and planes they can't even use.

And those are just the big clear ones. This president makes a joke of law on a routine basis.

Re:or Obama could follow the laws he proposes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44560297)

You seem to be under the impression that the government has to obey the constitution, and even that it has to obey the law.

In reality it is only the rest of us who have to obey the law. Even people outside the government need not obey the law, if they are in a favored group such as Wall St bankers.

In the Savings and Loan scandal in the 1980s, thousands of people were prosecuted and imprisoned. The 2008 financial crisis only produced a small number of prosecutions of minor figures.

The belief that we live under the rule of law can by this time only be described as delusional.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (1, Insightful)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#44560123)

...supreme court...can head out to Nevada and run it themselves!

Not their job. The Administration, as the Executive Branch, of the Gov., needs to, you know, do their job of EXECUTING law that the Legislative branch, you know, Congress, the people who MAKE THE LAW, create.

We've never been any further from a representitive government and closer to rule by decree than now.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (2)

Myopic (18616) | about a year ago | (#44560189)

"We've never been any further from a representitive government and closer to rule by decree than now."

1863

Re: Yet another anti-Obama article (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44558931)

Speaking to State Department personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia, Brazil, on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that "this little thing called the Internet ... makes it much harder to govern."

Re: Yet another anti-Obama article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559299)

he really meant... makes it harder to CONTROL.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (5, Insightful)

bondsbw (888959) | about a year ago | (#44558941)

The checks and balances in our government are what stands between a successful government of the people and a dictatorship. What powers you give Obama today, or gave Bush yesterday, may be in the hands of a form of Hitler tomorrow.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#44559151)

Nuclear waste? Is Yucca Mountain pronounced "yucky?"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

(BTW, if I had points you'd get one. +5, nail on head)

yep, what powers Obama is allowed, Palin will have (5, Insightful)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#44559153)

It always surprises me that people forget - if you allow the president a power grab, you're giving that power to a future President Palin or whoever. Don't want Palin making your healthcare choices, including contraceptives? Keep the federal government out of health care.

Re:yep, what powers Obama is allowed, Palin will h (2)

Myopic (18616) | about a year ago | (#44560233)

I have a hard time seeing your logic. If we don't have universal healthcare, somehow you think that will prevent anti-abortion laws? I don't think that's right. You know that all 50 states used to ban contraceptives, right? Way way back before Obama was even born?

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (4, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | about a year ago | (#44559279)

that is what is happening.

over the last dozen or so administrations each has taken a little more power and then a little more. frequently flouting the law and not caring about conseqnuesnces unless it blows up in their faces, and then they do the absolutely least amount to make it go away.

For obama it is the NSA spying program. Obama wants to add checks and balances by letting the NSA monitor themselves monitoring every citizen without warrant or reason.

Bush said torture was not only legal, but expanded Gitmo to house people who he thought didn't deserve the rule of law.

Clinton, created and pushed through the DCMA.

Bush senoir basically covered his tracks while he was VP.

Reagan sold chemical weapons to Saddam. Who used them.

Carter was just a pussy.

Ford was a fill in

Nixon um watergate anyone

Johnson, Vietnam isn't a war it was never declared as such by Congress. Vietnam was a police action.

Kennedy? well he slept with more women(and better looking ones) than clinton did.

Eisnhowser? probably the last decent president we had. it is too bad no bothered listening to his warnings on military industrial complex taking over.

Truman? he nuked a country twice.(for a good reason Japan would not have go down easily)

Roosevelt? he was the first and only president to be elected 3 times breaking the tradition since Washington of only two terms. and he created the Executive office of the Presidency.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (2)

mi (197448) | about a year ago | (#44559505)

expanded Gitmo to house people who he thought didn't deserve the rule of law.

There are only two alternatives to detaining prisoners in Gitmo:

  1. release them to go free;
  2. kill them on the spot.

Guess, which of the two Obama has chosen [guardian.co.uk] to expedite closing of the camp? All things considered, I prefer Bush's approach — it is far less bloody [umb.edu] .

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (2)

qeveren (318805) | about a year ago | (#44559693)

I'm pretty sure one could try them in civilian courts, considering 'terrorism' is a criminal act, not an act of war. But that would be hideously inconvenient, considering how many of them ended up there.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (1)

mi (197448) | about a year ago | (#44559761)

I'm pretty sure one could try them in civilian courts, considering 'terrorism' is a criminal act, not an act of war. But that would be hideously inconvenient, considering how many of them ended up there.

Not just inconvenient — impossible: we don't even have jurisdiction in most of those cases. Consider pirates [umb.edu] for another — less politically-charged — example... Whenever NATO captures them — off the coast of Somalia, primarily — they are let go...

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44560243)

Consider pirates for another - less politically-charged - example... Whenever NATO captures them - off the coast of Somalia, primarily - they are let go...

I seem to recall reading that piracy (the sea-going kind) is technically still a hanging offense.

Of course the news would have a field day if a NATO or US vessel hanged someone.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (5, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#44560029)

In theory, Gitmo is for enemy combatants, not terrorists. Or at least that's how it started.

You really don't want to go down the path of civil trials for enemy combatants. Being an enemy soldier and firing at US troops is not illegal, nor is flying a bomber over a US city and dropping bombs on civilians. Doing so without being in uniform violates every treaty governing war for the past 400 year or so, but it's only the "not in uniform" part that's illegal. A downed enemy bomber pilot should be released at the end of the war, not executed for mass murder.

But in 2011 yet another incremental power grab (Obama's in this case, but it's not like the pattern is new) extended "covered persons" (those for which military justice is appropriate) to members of terrorist groups and people giving assistance to them. That crosses the bright line separation between "enemy soldier (in uniform or otherwise)" and "just some guy opposed to the US". For the former to apply to a US citizen, he has to fly to Afghanistan and point a rifle at a US uniform - really hard to abuse to go after local political opponents. The later can be stretched to apply to just about anyone, by submitting "evidence" to the secret courts where there's no defense present.

I have no problem with having P.O.W. camps when we're fighting, whether or not war was officially declared. But to effectively convict someone who clearly isn't an enemy soldier of treason without a trial? That's Star Chamber nonsense right there, the exact sort of thing we had a revolution to get away from.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559727)

Generally, after the war is over, the prisoners get to go home.
This is all because we never intend to end this war, not until the money runs out at least.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (2)

mi (197448) | about a year ago | (#44559807)

Generally, after the war is over, the prisoners get to go home.

That's only true about Prisoners of War [wikipedia.org] — and we did release all of the captured Iraqi soldiers shortly after the invasion succeeded in 2003, for example. The detainees in Gitmo don't qualify as Prisoners of War however:

  • they did not have uniforms nor other obvious markings;
  • they weren't part of a chain-of-command responsible for their actions;
  • most did not carry their arms openly

.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | about a year ago | (#44560265)

Soldiers get put in prisoner of war camps till the end of fighting, if they do illegal stuff they get a military trial. Civilians get arrested by police and tried by a civilian court. Now Obama just has to choose what side of that line to put the Gitmo detainees on. Or he could just make up some crazy new status called unlawful combatant and make up new rules for them. But that would be illegal.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (1)

Myopic (18616) | about a year ago | (#44560257)

Bush's foreign policy resulted in a quarter million dead Iraqis, plus a rounding error of Americans. Obama isn't exactly a pacifist, but he is compared to Bush. It's untenable to say that Bush's approach was less bloody.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#44559583)

Roosevelt? he was the first and only president to be elected 3 times breaking the tradition since Washington of only two terms.

Four times (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944). He died early in his fourth term, leaving Truman (whom he disliked so much that the existence of the A-Bomb came as a surprise to Truman after he became President) in charge.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (-1, Flamebait)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44559355)

What powers you give Obama today, or gave Bush yesterday, may be in the hands of a form of Hitler tomorrow.

There's a reason Godwin's law exists, a person who cannot construct a thought without referencing Hitler is seriously deficient. Try to think of a different historical example, to show you can think.

How to fix this to avoid Godwin's law:
"What powers you give Obama today, or gave bush yesterday, may be in the hands of a form of Vlad the Impaler tomorrow."

It's so simple. Use your creative powers wisely.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (1)

bondsbw (888959) | about a year ago | (#44559497)

Thank you so much for teaching me to think for myself. As a result, I will always follow your words and never stray.

Besides, you are so correct, oh wise Internet sage. Who cares that we are talking about a potential madman controlling the most powerful nation in the history of the world. I should never compare such a thing to Hitler.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (1)

qeveren (318805) | about a year ago | (#44559713)

I'd love to see the corollary to Godwin's Law that says anything about "You're stupid and you lose all debates for ever."

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | about a year ago | (#44560045)

We have a simple shorthand for "monstrous dictator that everyone will recognize." It's silly not to use that shorthand when it's convenient, and Godwin's law doesn't really apply if you're just using Hitler as a placeholder for a malevolent ruler.

a person who cannot construct a thought without referencing Hitler is seriously deficient.

I'd argue that anyone who immediately eschews tools that are available to them based on the opinions of someone on the Internet is "seriously deficient". I can couch my meaning in more obscure references...but why bother? Doing unnecessary work is counter-productive.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44560447)

Yes, you explain exactly why, if a person can only think in broad strokes, without any deep understanding, they use Hitler as an example.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (1)

easyTree (1042254) | about a year ago | (#44559363)

The checks and balances in our government are what stands between a successful government of the people and a dictatorship.

/me slaps you around the head with a trout. "Wake up dude". In what sense do you have a democracy? Really?

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (1)

bondsbw (888959) | about a year ago | (#44559559)

I chose my words wisely. You quoted my words wrongly.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#44559667)

In what sense do you have a democracy?

We have a democracy in the sense that we hold elections to choose our leaders. Just because you don't like the outcome of those elections doesn't make them invalid. I voted for Gary Johnson [wikipedia.org] . He didn't win. That isn't because the "system is rigged", but rather because very few people share my viewpoint. You should get out of the basement and talk to real people. Most of them are pretty happy with Obama.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (1)

X-Ray Artist (1784416) | about a year ago | (#44559381)

Some people just don't get that concept. Some people do get that concept but just don't care. Some people get that concept and care but feel helpless to do anything about it. Some people get that concept, care, feel capable of doing something about it but become part of the problem. I hope that we don't give away so much that we cannot bring back the balance peacefully.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (1)

infinitelink (963279) | about a year ago | (#44559973)

Erhm, uhm...Presidents have the power to ignore laws they...find unconstitutional. Of course to Obama that means "anything that doesn't accord with my form of relatively-recent progressivism", so he hasn't a leg to stand upon.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559031)

Because the alternative was Mitt Romney?

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559135)

I seem to remember a half-dozen other names on my ballot.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559075)

No,

I think it has broader application.

Such as the potential court rulings in the future regarding certain patriotic network connectivity and the collection of data, which were a result from a flouting of the law by various branches of power.

This is an example to use in order to keep the powers that be, to be beholdened to the powers they were granted.

This is an assertion of an important check, to balance the power as it should be.

It does not matter if it is Obama or someone else -- this can set a precedent that the courts will hold those responsible... responsible.\

Captcha: suckling

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (3, Interesting)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#44559079)

What makes you think they were wrong? The choice offered us by the political machine was between an obvious sellout, and an obvious sellout who's also a raving misogynistic looney that's utterly out of touch with what it means to work for a living. I've met very few people who voted for Obama the second time around, but many, many who voted against Romney. When I'm feeling cynical it almost looks like the Republican party intentionally took a dive. And who could blame them - lots of old vultures coming home to roost - it looks much better for the Rs if a D happens to be in the oval office at the time.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (2, Funny)

mi (197448) | about a year ago | (#44559371)

an obvious sellout who's also a raving misogynistic looney that's utterly out of touch with what it means to work for a living

I don't think, either of the major candidates last year were misogynists. Both had lovely families — and full backing of their wives. Romney's wife, in particular, did not even have her own political ambition as an incentive to appear backing her husband.

There was nothing "loony" about either candidate, but Mitt Romney would've followed the law in question — and done a number of other things right by now...

utterly out of touch with what it means to work for a living.

I'm confused here... I thought, your wrath was directed at Romney — who did work for his living before becoming a politician — but now you appear to be angry at Obama, who moved into politics straight out of college and whose biggest Executive position before Presidency was running a (failed) small-time charity...

Two moderate Republicans. (0)

Valdrax (32670) | about a year ago | (#44559499)

The choice offered us by the political machine was between an obvious sellout, and an obvious sellout who's also a raving misogynistic looney that's utterly out of touch with what it means to work for a living.

I think that's a bit unfair to Romney. Now, I voted for Obama or, as you more accurately put it, against Romney, but he wasn't a "raving misogynistic looney." (He was pretty out of touch, though.) Romney was the most moderate candidate the Republicans fielded in that primary, and the only reason he managed to win it was because every other candidate self-destructed as an actual looney or otherwise unsuited to lead.

No, the real comparison, is that we had the choice of voting for two moderate Republicans, one of whom pandered to the Tea Party and other of which pandered to the Democratic Party.

Seriously. Rewind the clock about 20-30 years and see if you don't think Obama could have won a Republican primary. Romney and Obama (if we ignore his race and ran purely on policy) would have stood an equal chance against someone like Bob Dole or George H.W. Bush.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (5, Insightful)

reboot246 (623534) | about a year ago | (#44559087)

'The president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections,' Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in a majority opinion (PDF), which was joined Judge A. Raymond Randolph.

That's all this president has been doing since he's been in office. He ignores the parts of the law he doesn't agree with and rigorously enforces the parts he does agree with. That's why nobody will trust him on comprehensive immigration reform -- he'll just waive the parts of the law he doesn't like. You can't deal with a man like that. Imagine that! An un-American, law-breaking, lying president. Ah, ye fools!

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about a year ago | (#44559897)

Maybe you should step off your partisan rant and realize GW Bush started the whole signing statement craze where he would basically rewrite the law with his signing statement. Obama is continuing his tradition just as every president continues the expansion of powers of the previous administration even if they campaigned against said powers.

So the question is when Bush was signing bills and saying he interpreted the law to mean exactly the opposite of what the law said were you as up in arms about it as you are with Obama? Because from what I've seen, while I abhor what Obama is doing by ignoring these laws, he's not doing it nearly as often as Bush and almost everyone I met railing against Obama fully supported Bush when he did exactly the same thing. Personally I think they are both full of shit.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559105)

One thing that people aren't really thinking about when they read this is the bigger picture of certain things like his failure to uphold DoMA, or failure to properly enforce the federal immigration laws by letting illegal aliens out of the jails and back onto the streets instead of shipping them back to their countries of origin, or the most recent debaucle about Obamacare business mandate being delayed a year but individual not.

Obama and his administration does not have the right or the authority to selectively enforce the law. He is the chief executive officer, the top "lawman" of the country, and he is bound by the law as much as anyone else is, he's not above it.

So that means, Obamacare must be enforced AS IT IS WRITTEN, the government cannot ignore laws that are inconvenient to the agenda. The government has laws and regulations they must follow as they are enacted.

Are we a nation of men or are we a nation of laws?

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (2)

Qzukk (229616) | about a year ago | (#44559141)

Are we a nation of men or are we a nation of laws?

Ford's words said "laws", his actions said "men" and we've been going downhill since.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559111)

Big question is how it was OK when Bush did it with his unitary executive powers to do whatever the fuck he wanted up to and including signing the Detainee Treatment Act with a signing statement of "Will not obey and you can't make me." [wikipedia.org] (btw, before you go wah wah consitution like Bush did, the Constitution specifically puts regulation of the military in Congress's hands, incluing the UCMJ and what would be considered violations thereof). But now suddenly the president has make sure the law is faithfully executed as if he had some sort of oath to do so.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44560187)

Posting anonymously because I've been modding in this thread.

> Big question is how it was OK when Bush did it

I don't know why I bother, but I'll try one more time. As your grandma used to say: two wrongs don't make a right. For the record, there were plenty of people (on both the left and right) who were screaming bloody murder during the Bush administration. One of the talk show hosts on one of our (otherwise quite-conservative) stations devoted an entire week to ranting about the Patriot Act and Guantanamo.

You can't even see that this is the problem: it's not Dem vs. Repub anymore. It's a runaway Federal government that has entirely too much power. BOTH parties are guilty. Until we enact term limits and get some fresh blood up in Washington, it will continue, too.

-- Stephen

Oh good, now where were you two decades ago? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44558937)

Yucca Mountain has been the Hot Potato of American politics since it was proposed. If anything was going to be done, it'll be too late.

Re:Oh good, now where were you two decades ago? (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44559003)

Yucca Mountain has been the Hot Potato of American politics since it was proposed. If anything was going to be done, it'll be too late.

I didn't even know it was open and processing/storing waste. A friend worked at Hanford and told me how grim things where there and it would need to be relieved of storing any additional waste as it was over capacity and having great difficulty with what it had, something to do with putting leaking vaults into bigger vaults because some old contractor had mixed concrete wrong or the spec was wrong or both (not really too surprising, considering the massive tomes which must be making up 'regulations' these days.)

Effectively this is the SCOTUS telling the NRC to read, rubber-stamp, shuffle, rubber-stamp, collate, file, retrieve, shuffle, rubber-stamp and push pencils much faster. A bureaucrat's nightmare!

"who took my left-handed, Thursday, month-without-an-R-in-it, special issue Red Tape Cutting scissors?!?"

Re:Oh good, now where were you two decades ago? (5, Informative)

Frobnicator (565869) | about a year ago | (#44559213)

Effectively this is the SCOTUS telling the NRC to read, rubber-stamp, shuffle, rubber-stamp, collate, file, retrieve, shuffle, rubber-stamp and push pencils much faster. A bureaucrat's nightmare!

The law (passed in 1983) said that once a location is chosen, the agency is allowed 3 years to make a yes or no determination, with one-year extensions if they become necessary.

All that is required is a simple "Yes" or "No", within three years.

The 3-year clock started ticking in 2002.

Since 2002 over $100M has been spent simply waiting for the yes or no answer.

Both the original court order and this appeals court order are repeating: The law says you must give a yes or no answer within three years. The time is expired, you must give your answer.

The problem is entirely political. They cannot answer either way and still expect to get votes, so they bury their heads in the sand and refuse to do anything other than cash the checks.

In some ways I am jealous; how many jobs can you do nothing for a decade and still collect a tithe of a billion dollars for it? Are they accepting new hires? It seems like a bureaucrat's dream.

NIMBY and a big Fuck You (1, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44558939)

Here's the real story: Nobody wants to have a nuclear waste disposal site in their backyard. And actually, that is the sum total of the story; everything else is just details. In this case, some people at the NRC (and the President) decided that the only way this was ever going to happen is if they take unilateral action, say fuck you to the NIMBYs, and move forward. Obviously, the courts are butthurt by this, because they want the chance to let every significant government action get bogged down in the quagmire that is our endless appeals process.

Ta da. The end. If you ask me... Bravo NRC, bravo Mr. President. Not because I agree with how they're doing it, but because it's probably the only way it'll ever get done... and this does need to get done. We can't wait another 10, 20, or 50 years while the government and the general public pulls its head out of its ass. Our planet is heating up. Fast. Fossil fuels are not sustainable. Period. This is scientific fact. We need nuclear power, and we need it now. Which means, we also need storage facilities. And we actually needed those storage facilities about 15 years ago... because right now, there is a lot of nuclear waste piling up in our major cities because they can't ship them anywhere due to this kind of regulatory bullshit. And guess what: The interim storage containers are starting to fail. Everywhere.

If someone doesn't step in and squash the NIMBYs (and ride rough-shod over the courts and their affinity for endless delays and accomodation for them), we will eventually have a major public health crisis on our hands. So again... I don't agree with how they did it, but the lack of effective alternatives weighed against the consequences makes this a no-brainer for me.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (4, Informative)

JDAustin (468180) | about a year ago | (#44559017)

...and why are you giving the NRC and Obama bravo's? They are CLOSING Yucca mountain, not getting it completed and therefore usable.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44559333)

...and why are you giving the NRC and Obama bravo's? They are CLOSING Yucca mountain, not getting it completed and therefore usable.

Umm, maybe this is a bit of an obvious thing to say, but given that you're at a +5 informative and I've been modded troll, perhaps not obvious enough...

Why are they closing Yucca mountain?

Is it perhaps because all the money was witheld due to pressure from the NIMBYs, thus leaving closure the only option? The NRC pushed for years to get this operational and failed time and time again... because they couldn't ride roughshod over the courts. They tried. They failed. I admire that effort, though it failed.

Obama had no choice but to mothball it; It was even part of his 2008 election campaign -- the NIMBYs, led by their commander Senator Harry Reid, vigorously campaigned to kill it. They won. Before Obama even took office, funding was cut, cut, and then gutted, cut some more, and roasted over a fire. Obama is now riding roughshod over the courts to get the money invested in the program back out, because he can't overcome NIMBY.

So you've got the NRC on one side, trying to get past the endless appeals of the court system to get it done. You've got The NIMBYs on the other side, trying to keep it in court forever so it'll never get done... and you've got Obama in the middle saying "Fuck this -- Appeals court; GTFO." All he's trying to do is get some traction one way or another -- he picked pulling out because pressure was too great, not because the project isn't necessary. And yeah, I support that -- politically it's his only option. Just as the NRCs only option was to try to get around the courts before lobbyists got to Congress and killed it. It was a race... they lost. And the whole nation loses too.

All of this because our goddamned court system is a giant monkey wrench in the guts of anything that society needs, but individuals don't want near them: Like prisons, sewage processing plants, nuclear reactors, etc. I bravo both Obama and the NRC because they recognize it's the court system that's fucking things up and they tried to do and end run-around them. They both failed. They were both on opposite sides of the problem... but ultimately, they both agreed on where the problem was: The goddamned courts.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (1)

retroworks (652802) | about a year ago | (#44560001)

Mod parent up. (Though Yucca Mountain stalemate goes back to at least Jimmy Carter, maybe earlier)

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (1)

Myopic (18616) | about a year ago | (#44560315)

Why not say fuck you to the NIMBYs? Aren't there fewer of them than all the rest of us?

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559069)

They're not completing the site, they're shutting it down. They gave the NIMBYs exactly what they wanted...no nuclear waste storage site even though the law says it is to be completed and used for storage.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#44559285)

Maybe they should start recycling it?

Hot nuclear waste that still has a lot of radiation also has a lot of energy left to give.

Also, we have glassification techniques that can neutralize a lot of the danger.

I smell a rat that's getting fattened up as a government contractor.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (1)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about a year ago | (#44559089)

Fossil fuels are not sustainable. Period.

(I think you got 2 more perioids there than you need.) Also, you're assuming that the people in power(who mostly overlap with the group of people who never developed any type of moral backbone or anything resembling ethics) care what happens after theyre gone. Whats in it for them to lessen their gains now to care about what comes in 50, 100 or 200 years? People need to start bringing out the pitchforks and torches again and make them understand the people in power are there to server the public, not the other way around.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#44559231)

I think you got 2 more perioids there than you need.

Better than!!! She's simply saying "end of story" or "the end."

I have to agree with your comment about the powerful, though.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559095)

Here's the real story: Nobody wants to have a nuclear waste disposal site in their backyard.

So as a result, everybody gets a nuclear waste disposal site in their backyard.

Those nuclear reactor sites have to store their waste somewhere, and without a designated -- and designed for it -- national storage facility, they're all storing it on-premises.

Of course we could take things to the opposite extreme: vitrified waste (fairly inert, possibly harmful if swallowed) per person per year is about the volume of a child's marble. Just go totally distributed and make everyone store their own (eg in a lead safe in their basement -- the lead is probably more toxic).

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559109)

Here's the real story: Nobody wants to have a nuclear waste disposal site in their backyard.

Bullcrap. I live in Vegas and have for over 35 years. It's not in my backyard. It's hundreds of yards underground in some of the most stable geological rock on the planet.

But what about semi trucks, they have to transport this stuff, you ask? The casks that transport the waste are insanely tough. Non issue.

My proposal is to tax the transport of waste 100K per mile traveled on/through Nevada and return half that money to the citizens, a quarter goes to an emergency fund and the other quarter goes to civil/civic engineering improvements. I guarantee the "I am terrified of nukes" crowd would sing a far different tune when they are making a living wage for just allowing it through the state.

The FUD crowd seems to have won in the court of public opinion, sadly.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#44559305)

Unfortunately nuclear waste is a federal issue and the glory of interstate commerce demands that the feds get to do what they want with it and not get taxed for it.

Simply put, the federal government has preempted states on DOE issues.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559121)

Here's the real story: Nobody wants to have a nuclear waste disposal site in their backyard. And actually, that is the sum total of the story; everything else is just details. In this case, some people at the NRC (and the President) decided that the only way this was ever going to happen is if they take unilateral action, say fuck you to the NIMBYs, and move forward. Obviously, the courts are butthurt by this, because they want the chance to let every significant government action get bogged down in the quagmire that is our endless appeals process.

Ta da. The end. If you ask me... Bravo NRC, bravo Mr. President. Not because I agree with how they're doing it, but because it's probably the only way it'll ever get done... and this does need to get done. We can't wait another 10, 20, or 50 years while the government and the general public pulls its head out of its ass. Our planet is heating up. Fast. Fossil fuels are not sustainable. Period. This is scientific fact. We need nuclear power, and we need it now. Which means, we also need storage facilities. And we actually needed those storage facilities about 15 years ago... because right now, there is a lot of nuclear waste piling up in our major cities because they can't ship them anywhere due to this kind of regulatory bullshit. And guess what: The interim storage containers are starting to fail. Everywhere.

If someone doesn't step in and squash the NIMBYs (and ride rough-shod over the courts and their affinity for endless delays and accomodation for them), we will eventually have a major public health crisis on our hands. So again... I don't agree with how they did it, but the lack of effective alternatives weighed against the consequences makes this a no-brainer for me.

...perhaps read the opinion or even the /. provided summary? The NRC\Obama was trying to prevent the opening of this site, which would have allowed for the safe storage of nuclear waste. So the NIMBYs would have preferred the Obama\NRC approach to silently ignore the law, which is exactly what the courts said couldn't happen.

Generally speaking, as an electrical engineer who admittedly is not in the mainstream of proposals for safe and indefinite storage of nuclear waste, I have not seen a proposal that is empirically significantly better than that of the Yucca Mountain facility.

So...Obama\NRC's (now defunct) approach could have driven demand for more fossil fuel burn. Regardless of ones politics for or against Nuclear Energy\Waste, it seems appropriate for this court to have ruled as it did given the US Constitution and the separation between enactment (House + Senate, having given the statuary framework to proceed with the Yucca site mountain) and enforcement (Executive; willing to ignore it for "policy" reasons). This is why there is Judicial to provide the balance between "you shall" and "we shall not enforce".

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (2)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#44559145)

> And that means we need storage facilities

Or fuel reprocessing plants - we had such things in the early days of fission energy, but then advances in uranium mining made them unprofitable. Pull out the 90% of the high level "waste" that's still perfectly good fuel and what's left will be reasonably safe in only a couple centuries. It is still kinda hot, but a multi-millenia storage facility is necessary.

So which palms do you suppose were greased to make sure that the admittance facility at Yucca Mountain wasn't also a fuel reprocessing plant?

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559155)

FYI two of those three judges that ruled the Obama administration was "flouting the law" (not the other way around) were Bush appointees. The third was appointed by Clinton.

Second, you have it backwards.... Obama wanted to close it, not complete it.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (2)

PraiseBob (1923958) | about a year ago | (#44559157)

You do realize Obama caved in to the NIMBY crowd in 2009 and cut funding to Yucca Mtn and is trying to terminate the project and find another site? His previous secretary of energy declared the site invalid, despite congress passing the law, Bush signing the law, and despite the court ruling it valid. The current executive branch has cited "budget problems", so isn't spending any money to actually run the project, so nothing is happening. Now the court is ruling it a valid site, yet again.

Nevada runs the Senate! (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about a year ago | (#44559351)

You do realize that the head of the Senate is from Nevada right?

Yucca Mountain has had every possible hurdle placed in it's way to gum up the project- all that is left is for officials fighting NIMBY forces to start having accidents... Different stall tactics are tried by everybody who gets into this mess. It's a politically toxic issue.

As for Obama, he isn't simple to follow. He says one thing and then does something "pragmatic" to get along with as many of the powerful forces as possible - it is as if the 2 year long healthcare battle took away his spine completely. Ever since he hasn't really gone up against the system - which likes to go almost nowhere new. Remember, nobody anywhere wanted healthcare to change...except the public and Obama. What we got wasn't so great - but it isn't that bad either - given that nobody has done jack since Nixon fucked it all up says a lot... and it was during probably the most corrupt dysfunctional time in the nation's history. Don't know why people expect so much when they encourage this farce democracy to continue. I don't know the motives, but forcing this legal battle which should have been obviously a loser seems to eliminate more stalling.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559171)

Let's store all our nuclear waste in one place. Does that even make sense in a world of terrorism? Plus why does it have to be shipped to a place that has no nuclear reactors? Plus this wouldn't be just US nuclear waste it would be shipped from around the world. Nothing could possibly go wrong with trains and trucks filled with this stuff travelling all over the US.

Also the site they want to put it in experiences regular earthquakes and the water table rises into the site. Does that sound safe. Personally I think the people that have gotten the benefit of nuclear power should have to shoulder the burden of storing the waste.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559321)

Plus why does it have to be shipped to a place that has no nuclear reactors?

I don't know about reactors, but Nevada has been the site of probably more nuclear bomb explosions than any other place on the planet.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44559757)

Personally I think the people that have gotten the benefit of nuclear power should have to shoulder the burden of storing the waste.

umm.. they are, the american people. except that they aren't, since obama doesn't want to use yucca. having it in one place is much better than distributed everywhere.. if terrorism is your concern. burying it in 100 different sites all around would be just asking for trouble now or later.

and umm what the fuck from around the world? you think we aren't doing our own long term placement plans elsewhere?

you made your long term plans and now are skipping from them.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You (2)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about a year ago | (#44559399)

Here's the real story: Nobody wants to have a nuclear waste disposal site in their backyard.

This is mostly because it hasn't been handled and presented right. If the people of Nevada actually engaged their brains, what they should have done is just demanded money. By adding 1% to the cost of building the facility, they could give every single household in Nevada over $1000 -- and by charging other states to store their waste there, they could continue to pay the citizens back.

Make a proposal like that, and it's guaranteed that the people will vote in someone who will make it happen. No way the NIMBYs would be able to stop it.

NSA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44558955)

This might have some interesting repercussions if we ever get a court hearing on surveillance...

Brett Kavanaugh has made his decision... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44558957)

...now let him enforce it!

It's in the middle of the freaking desert (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44558989)

How much more NIMBY can you get? Just build it already!

Re:It's in the middle of the freaking desert (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44559177)

How much more NIMBY can you get? Just build it already!

What's really fascinating is how much crap has already been detonated in the name of research in the Nevada desert and yet this can't seem to move forward, decade upon decade. Not like the place has more faults than California and yet this [google.com] happened. But anything with desert all over the top is wasteland and ideal, right? Rather than some immensely stable place like in the Dakotas. Makes for good popcorn-munching drama after all these years.

If Nevada didn't want it.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559035)

They shouldn't have taken money...

Here's a thought... If they don't want the waste site then Nevada needs to repay all of the federal money that has been spent on the project... Also, since they clearly acted in bad faith, they also get to temporarily store all of the nuclear waste until a waste repository is built.

Those fuckers took the money... Now it is time to take the waste!!!

Re:If Nevada didn't want it.... (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about a year ago | (#44559405)

Those fuckers took the money... Now it is time to take the waste!!!

In that respect, Yep.

The short version .. (1)

dgharmon (2564621) | about a year ago | (#44559133)

Please spend your last $11.1 million on a facility that is never going to become operational. Make sure the money goes to companies financing political lobbysts.

Fact Sheet on Licensing Yucca Mountain [nrc.gov]

Fast becoming the rule rather than the exception (3, Insightful)

jensend (71114) | about a year ago | (#44559139)

In the past couple of years we've seen the administration declare loudly that they'll refuse to enforce other laws, including immigration laws and the Obamacare employer mandate. Meanwhile, any court challenge to a law the administration doesn't particularly like is sure to succeed, since the administration will refuse to defend it.

Unless something turns around, the rule of law and the separation of powers are on their way out in this country, to be supplanted by the decisions of a dictator and of unelected officials he appoints.

A track-history of lawlessness (5, Informative)

HighOrbit (631451) | about a year ago | (#44559149)

You may or may not agree with the wisdom of any particular law, but the executive branch and the President have an obligation to see that the laws are faithfully executed until such time the law is repealed, even when they disagree personally (or politically) . Under the Constitution, it is not the place of President or his advisers to second-guess a duly passed law. If they think the law is unwise, they should go through the democratic process of petitioning Congress to repeal it. Just unilaterally deciding to ignore the law undermines the rule of law and the democratic process.

Here are some laws that the administration has famously ignored, instead of pursuing a repeal through the democratic process. There are probably more.
  • The Defense of Marriage Act
  • Mandatory Sentencing
  • Yucca Mountain

Again, I'm not saying any one of these laws is a wise law, but they are (or were in the case of DOMA until overturned) duly legislated, therefore the executive had a constitutional duty to enforce them until such time the laws are repealed by the legislature or overturned by the courts. Where is the Republic going when the executive branch no longer feels constrained by the law or the democracy?

Re:A track-history of lawlessness (0)

russotto (537200) | about a year ago | (#44559227)

Again, I'm not saying any one of these laws is a wise law, but they are (or were in the case of DOMA until overturned) duly legislated, therefore the executive had a constitutional duty to enforce them until such time the laws are repealed by the legislature or overturned by the courts.

The executive has no duty to enforce an unconstitutional law; laws are unconstitutional from the time they are passed, not the time they are ruled so.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness (3, Informative)

HighOrbit (631451) | about a year ago | (#44559365)

But it does! Because its not the Executive's job to adjudicate the constitutionality of the laws; that job belongs to the courts. The President has an opportunity to veto a law at the time it is passed and (not) signed. There is no constitutional provision for an after-the-fact veto.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44560119)

Your view appears valid on its face but it doesn't really survive a serious constitutional examination. The view that the executive branch is merely a dumb organ enforcing laws as interpreted by the supreme court is a fallacious view. Although I do agree with the court that a decision on nuclear waste disposal NEEDS to be made (either for or against), the President does have the constitutional authority to interpret and enforce the constitution, much like the Supreme Court can. I know it appears counter to popular belief, but a careful examination of the constitution reveals this conflict of powers. Although the Supreme Court has declared itself the sole and ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions but obviously the other branches don't quite agree, else the President supposedly flouting the constitution would have been subject to numerous impeachment motions.

Basis for this argument, you might inquire. US Constitution, Art. II, Section 1, last paragraph requires the President to swear an oath to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Common sense indicates the President cannot fulfill this function of protecting and defending the Constitution if he cannot tell what the constitution is. Telling what the constitution is imposes a duty on the President to interpret that constitution.

Obviously, if the President's interpretation is at odds with that of the Supreme Court, we have a constitutionally-created impasse. That is also one of the checks and balances in the constitution: on constitutional matters, the President does not HAVE TO defer to the courts, just as the courts do not have to defer to the President. Odd, yes, but that's the law of the land. See the historical antecedents of the switch in time that saved nine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine [wikipedia].

 

Re:A track-history of lawlessness (2)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year ago | (#44559651)

But Obama is deciding himself what's unconstitutional and what's not. THAT'S the problem here.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44560049)

Utter fail. Laws are constitutional once passed, until they are either ruled unconstitutional by the judiciary, or repealed by the legislature. The executive plays no role in this, though it may act as advocate either for or against the law before the judiciary. Similar to how you are innocent until proven guilty. The law is valid until proven otherwise. This is *the* fundamental separation of powers between the three branches of government. I dearly hope that you are not American, or still very, very young, as you have apparently not yet learned even the basic structure of our government, or the history that inspired it. A law may be morally & ethically in error when it is passed, just are you were born ignorant and stupid, but is not confirmed as such until the courts say so, or until you opened your mouth.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness (1)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about a year ago | (#44559239)

Where is the Republic going when the executive branch no longer feels constrained by the law or the democracy?

Are you saying there was a period in american history where the government actually did more than play a lip service to the written rules?

Re:A track-history of lawlessness (2)

HighOrbit (631451) | about a year ago | (#44559283)

Yes, practically the entirety, otherwise the Republic would have fallen long ago. I can not name any other time of SYSTEMIC lawlessness by the executive, not even Watergate. The only thing that come close was Jackson and Indian removal (trail of tears).

Re:A track-history of lawlessness (4, Insightful)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about a year ago | (#44559613)

Yes, practically the entirety, otherwise the Republic would have fallen long ago. I can not name any other time of SYSTEMIC lawlessness by the executive, not even Watergate. The only thing that come close was Jackson and Indian removal (trail of tears).

Funny, just from my recent memory things like selling drugs to arm terrorists, backing and conducting assassinations, jailing people without charging or trialing them, coups and fabricating evidence to start a war with a neutral nation spring to mind.

Or are you saying those people were trialed and served justice for their crimes against humanity and whatnot as per according to your own constitution, Nuremberg principles, international treaties and basic human decency while I blinked?

To me the fact that these people were not punished is a sign that the whole thing is(and has been) rotten to the core and the insects infesting it are covering for eachother, this is merely just the most recent set of faces.

Let me turn the question around; can you name a century during which no systemic corruption, disregard for human rights and life, or unjust violation of national sovereignty of a foreign nation condoned by US government did not happen?

Re:A track-history of lawlessness (1)

HighOrbit (631451) | about a year ago | (#44560011)

Would you care to cite a specific US Statute or US constitutional article and then the specific violating act?

Re:A track-history of lawlessness (1)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about a year ago | (#44560277)

Would you care to cite a specific US Statute or US constitutional article and then the specific violating act?

I'm afraid I cannot let Nuremberg defense slide here, Dave.

The Nazis defended their pre-war and war-time actions with national sovreignty and with the fact that everything done to the jews, gypsies, soviet POW's etc was in accordance with the German law at the time. The court - And we as a society of civilized nations decided that certains actions are punisable by death even when perpetrated by the government under laws of the land.

Are you seriously suggesting you've never heard of things I listed in the post youre now responding to?

Let me remind you:

Funny, just from my recent memory things like selling drugs to arm terrorists, backing and conducting assassinations, jailing people without charging or trialing them, coups and fabricating evidence to start a war with a neutral nation spring to mind.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness (1)

HighOrbit (631451) | about a year ago | (#44560135)

Let me turn the question around; can you name a century during which no systemic corruption, disregard for human rights and life, or unjust violation of national sovereignty of a foreign nation condoned by US government did not happen?

Yes, the entire two centuries have been without systemic constitutional irregularity. There have been anecdotal violations of statutes and constitutional provisions, but never systemic. These other things you seem to being trying to introduce into the conversation do not seem to be related to constitution or statute. Are you trying to say any blemish ruins the entire national project? Or are you saying another world power lasting two centuries has a better track record and therefore the US is lacking in comparison? Name the world power? (Its actually irrelevant to the conversation, because we are talking about US law, not foreign powers) I believe you are simply an anti-american who like to shout "You're not perfect, You're not perfect".

Re:A track-history of lawlessness (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about a year ago | (#44559909)

Perfectly matches the systematic inactivity of the legislative branch these days. (Symbolic attempts to repeal the ACA in the House don't count since they're DOA in the Senate.) They don't want to pass any laws, and the executive branch doesn't want to enforce them. The only one doing anything these days is the judicial branch, and that's mostly just pissing people off.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about a year ago | (#44559425)

as above by Anon Coward: President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!". that's your precedent brought to you by our Stalin...."how many divisions does the Pope have?" this is starting to look really bad, folks. not only do we have Fed spying on everyone all the time, it's getting down to upholding the Constitution, and it's not even a declared 'wartime' exception.

Re: A track-history of lawlessness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559451)

They have a lot of "obligations". How many times are they just going to ignore law, order, and common sense. The nrc is just doing this the obama way... unilaterally.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559473)

Sorry, but that's not really true. Not in reality and not in practice. If a governing body does not want to enforce the law then the law is effectively void. They are literally the top authority. You also can't try to pass laws to make unwilling bodies enforce laws, because you end up with recursion. Your only recourse is to change the governing body via election. A judge can issue an order, but this rare and often isn't very effective because what the Judge can issue as order is pretty limited. It's not likely they have the authority to remedy what's causing the law to not be enforced.

It's the same concept as de-funding. A law may require something, but if there is no funds it can't be enforced. Count how many dozens of times republicans have tried to de-fund "Obamacare" - This would effectively do the same thing. They'd ignore the law by removing it's funding because they can't change the law.

There are a lot of laws still on the books that are not enforced. See laws against interracial marriage, sodomy, oral sex, flag burning.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559705)

Don't forget:

* The Obama Administration, no doubt with an eye to the 2014 elections, has announced that certain parts of the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a Obamacare) will simply be postponed until after the election. Nothing in the ACA gives this power [bloomberg.com] to the Executive branch.

* President Obama attempted to make "bench" appointments when Congress was still in session. Months later, this one got shot down [washingtontimes.com] in the courts.

* The IRS went after political enemies of the Administration. There may or may not have been direct orders from President Obama. (I am not ruling out something along the lines of "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" [redstate.com] instead of direct orders.) Not only is selective enforcement of the law illegal, but the IRS released confidential details of some conservative organizations to those organizations' political enemies, which is absolutely illegal with no possible wiggle room.

* Eric Holder's Department of Justice has a history [frontpagemag.com] of flouting the law.

I read an article that observed that one of the traditional checks on the power of government is the worry that, when the pendulum shifts and the other party is in power, that the other party might start taking advantage of any precedents you set. The article speculated that the Obama Administration isn't worried about this, as the mainstream media is solidly in Obama's pocket and yet implacably opposed to the Republicans. This leaves the Obama Administration free to do things that would get any Republican a firestorm of horrible publicity.

Fans of Bill Clinton, after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, used to chant "Bush Lied, People Died. Clinton Lied, Nobody Died." Remember that nobody died in the Watergate scandal, and think very hard about the Benghazi scandal. But the mainstream media isn't interested in Benghazi or any of the other scandals, any more than they have to be.

I'm not sure why I bothered to write this as somebody will mod it down to -1 really fast, rather than writing a rebuttal.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44560445)

Aaah, brainfart, I wrote "bench" appointments when I meant "recess" appointments. sorry

Add to your list: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44559947)

1. Each part of "Obamacare" he is currently finding inconvenient like the corporate mandate, and the caps on out-of-pocket costs for individuals.

2. Immigration laws. (He's allowing people the law requires to be deported to instead stary by invoking his "dream act", which never became law) We now have so many illegals flooding over the southern border that the immigration people have run out of rooms to hold them and are renting hotel rooms for them with taxpayer dollars...

3. The law that forbids the IRS from giving out private taxpayer info (Obama did not personally do this, but note that he has not prosecuted any of the IRS employees who did indeed do it and Obama's FBI man could not tell congress who was in charge of the "investigation")

4. The budget laws... the US hit its borrowing limit in May and amazingly the national debt has remained officially the same ever since even though we keep spending money every hour of every day

There's plenty more but the next president will simultaneously face [a] an amazing mess (national debt DOUBLED by just one president!) and [b] a shocking number of evil precedents that will enable him/her to do some supremely BAD stuff if he/she chooses to...

Very sad... U.S. Presidents have a very specific set of duties and one of those is to see that the laws are faithfully enforced. By picking and choosing what laws he will enforce, the president is taking the powers of the legislature. If he does not agree with a law, it is Obama's duty to go to congress and ask that the law be changed... his excuse that they might just not agree with him is not a legitimate excuse. Every president has faced that... Republican president Reagan faced an overwhelmingly Democrat congress that had been entrenched for 40 years and was so comfortable and safe that its members were using the house post office to launder money and deal cocaine. For the last couple years he was president, George W Bush faced a congress run by Pelosi and Reid. Obama is apparently not as competent as his predecessors, and has decided to cheat. (gambling that congress will not fight his cheating as long as Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada runs the Senate and Obama keeps Yucca Mountain from operating...)

Nuclear Waste Policy Act (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about a year ago | (#44559393)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] I'm pretty sure this is over. The US was to of had
a permanent storage area for nuclear waste long ago.

This area (East Washington State) would liked to of had the waste and was working on a repository (testing). West Washington State
and the political power didn't; work was stopped and Nevada's Yucca Mountain became the designated (and only)
high level nuclear waste burial site.

Something does need to be done with the nuclear waste, other than storage pools at each nuclear plant.

The weakness of the presidentcy (1)

Ralph Ostrander (2846785) | about a year ago | (#44560047)

Is because no president has ever made a judge disappear in modern times. Abraham Lincoln was able to declare war on citizens just think if Obama did that to a state that wanted to separate today. For Obama to have been able to do everything they lay at his feet it would take a man 700 years if he never slept.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>