4 thoughts on “State Dept.: Keystone XL ‘would not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects’”

  1. Read the Constitution about checks and balance, also read about the three separate but equal powers that constitute the Federal Government of the USA

  2. You’re probably right–allow the nine most powerful unelected bureaucrats (I mean jurists) set another legal precedent.

  3. But – but – that appellate court said that courts should not be substituting their judgment for the judgment of the agency’s experts — oh, wait, this judgment would actually foster wealth. Therefore it must be egregiously wrong.
    Would Obama’s people approve the pipeline on a knowingly flimsy (or wilfully blind to a flimsy) EIS? Yeah, I can believe that. Then he gets to pretend he approved it while delaying it at least.
    I always kinda thought that Clinton deliberately avoided having to consider clemency for Timothy McVeigh so that the inevitable would happen on his successor’s watch. Same thing might be operating here; an EIS-based lawsuit could tie up the XL until the oil does go to China.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.