Schor writes: "The prospect of President Barack Obama tapping Sri Srinivasan
for the Supreme Court is spawning a sharp debate among at least one part of
the Democrats' liberal grass roots - environmentalists turned off by his
high-profile defense of giant fossil fuel companies."
Srinivasan's work on human rights cases in which he defended ExxonMobil and
the mining company Rio Tinto have raised particular objections from
environmentalists. (photo: Getty)
ALSO SEE: Environmentalists Fret About
Possible Obama Pick for High Court
Would Sri Srinivasan Be Exxon-Mobile's Justice?
By Elana Schor, Politico
12 March 16
His work as an attorney representing Enron's former CEO and ExxonMobil
raises hackles among some eco-activists.
The prospect of President Barack Obama tapping Sri Srinivasan for the
Supreme Court is spawning a sharp debate among at least one part of the
Democrats' liberal grass roots - environmentalists turned off by his
high-profile defense of giant fossil fuel companies.
The federal appellate court judge has emerged as an early favorite to
replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, given Srinivasan's sterling
educational and professional credentials, his bipartisan work history and
his inspiring biography as an immigrant who has risen to the highest ranks
of the legal profession. But his history of representing large corporations
runs the risk of alienating Obama allies looking to gauge his
still-developing record on key liberal priorities.
Srinivasan's work on human rights cases in which he defended ExxonMobil and
the mining company Rio Tinto have raised particular objections from
environmentalists. He also represented that enduring symbol of corporate
excess, former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling, in the appeal of the executive's
fraud and conspiracy convictions.
"Any judge that sides with Big Oil over the American people has no place on
our Supreme Court," said Jane Kleeb, a Nebraska activist who helped lead the
grass-roots campaign that killed the Keystone XL oil pipeline, in an email
to POLITICO on Tuesday.
"Corporate interests have trumped citizens' concerns for too long," she
added. "Folks in the heartland will not look the other way of Srinivasan
representing both Enron and Exxon, which denies climate science and pollutes
our land and water."
Jamie Henn, co-founder of the green group 350.org, called Srinivasan's work
for Exxon a "deeply disturbing" aspect of a "mixed" resume. During his time
at the firm O'Melveny & Myers, Srinivasan represented Exxon in a
long-running battle over alleged human rights abuses by members of the
Indonesian military whom the oil giant had hired to work on security at a
major natural gas plant.
"We hope that knowing what we all now know about Exxon and its deceit, he
wouldn't still want to work for them," Henn said by email. "No decent person
should."
Another environmentalist tracking the nomination said activists "are aware
of Srinivasan's troubling history representing Exxon . but honestly I don't
think anyone has made up their mind."
Exxon declined Tuesday to comment on the debate over Srinivasan's work
representing the company. The discussion among activists began over the
weekend following the news of Scalia's death, which occurred just days after
he and the four other conservative justices shocked the administration by
ordering an indefinite delay in Obama's marquee climate change regulations.
Greens held a spirited debate about Srinivasan on Tuesday afternoon during a
conference call among representatives of several groups, according to one
activist familiar with the discussions. They decided to keep evaluating
Srinivasan's record before making more definitive statements.
The challenge Srinivasan's nomination would pose to environmentalists
mirrors the struggle many of the activists face in the Democratic
presidential primary, in which Bernie Sanders has captured green hearts with
his blanket disavowals of the fossil fuel industry's influence - something
Hillary Clinton is only lately trying to match.
Srinivasan's work for Exxon and Rio Tinto, in a since-dismissed dispute over
human rights violations in Papua New Guinea, sparked harsh criticism from
one green group after Obama tapped him for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
in 2012.
The India-born judge, who emigrated to the U.S. as a young child,
"repeatedly took extreme positions that would demolish one of the few
existing avenues of legal accountability for violations of the international
law of human rights," EarthRights International wrote to senators in 2013.
ERI told POLITICO on Tuesday that "we have reconsidered our position" and
neither support nor oppose his possible nomination to the Supreme Court,
"although we continue to believe the Senate should receive full information
about his work as a government lawyer that may have benefited his former
corporate clients."
ERI may well have shifted thanks to several Srinivasan decisions that upheld
environmental regulations since he joined the D.C. appeals court. That court
is often a proving ground for jurists on the Supreme Court shortlist.
One of his earliest rulings has had a notable impact on environmental law:
In 2014, Srinivasan joined two other D.C. Circuit judges in tossing out part
of an Environmental Protection Agency cement rule that had shielded
companies from lawsuits over pollution released during malfunctions. The EPA
broadened the impact of that ruling by ordering states to drop similar
corporate liability protections from their Clean Air Act compliance plans,
which activists hailed as a win for low-income communities near power
plants, refineries and other industrial sites.
Whether or not Srinivasan's recent judicial record balances out his past
corporate client list, some greens are more worried about Republicans' vow
to keep Scalia's seat vacant until after Obama leaves office than about
making climate change a top-tier issue during judicial confirmation debates.
"We're more focused on [Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell and other senators
who have said there shouldn't be a nominee until after the election," League
of Conservation Voters senior vice president Tiernan Sittenfeld said.
Other environmentalists are counseling their fellow activists that
private-sector lawyers - such as Srinivasan used to - "have a duty to argue,
to the best of their ability, for their clients" regardless of their own
values, in the words of Greenpeace attorney Naomi Ages.
As for Srinivasan's harsher green critics, Ages said, "While I can't speak
on their behalf, of course their knee-jerk reaction might be to question
someone based on a client they've represented."
Srinivasan's short confirmation hearing for the D.C. Circuit, in May 2013,
offered little insight as to the potential overlap between his
private-sector work and his public face on the bench.
"I don't have an overarching, grand unified judicial philosophy that I would
bring with me to the bench," Srinivasan told senators then, adding that he
would "approach it in some sense in the position of a litigator."
Brad Johnson, executive director of the green group Climate Hawks Vote, was
still skeptical of Srinivasan's corporate background. "There are enough
fully qualified candidates for the Supreme Court that I personally don't
think it's necessary to pick someone who you have to ask these questions
about," he said Tuesday.
Still, he added, activist groups are keenly aware that "to challenge
President Obama on a decision is something that takes a lot of work to do
correctly. It's important that the environmental movement be very clear with
the American public about how crucial the Supreme Court is to the future of
climate change."
In various other cases since joining the appeals court, Srinivasan has sided
with the Obama administration, including upholding an EPA program enhancing
oversight of mine permits and keeping in place a $72 million fine against a
Volvo subsidiary in a case involving cheating on emissions tests. Last year,
he rejected various challenges from both environmentalists and industry
groups to EPA's list of areas that failed to meet a 2008 standard for ozone
pollution.
Srinivasan joined two other judges in 2014 to say EPA had gone too far with
a rule that eased some state deadlines for ozone compliance - a ruling that
sided with environmental groups. He has also ruled that environmentalists
could sue to seek historical protections that would block mining on a West
Virginia mountain.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Srinivasan's work on human rights cases in which he defended ExxonMobil and
the mining company Rio Tinto have raised particular objections from
environmentalists. (photo: Getty)
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/supreme-court-srinivasan-fossil-fuels-
scalia-219358 -
ixzz42ehNlIIphttp://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/supreme-court-srinivasan-
fossil-fuels-scalia-219358 - ixzz42ehNlIIp
ALSO SEE: Environmentalists Fret About
Possible Obama Pick for High Court
Would Sri Srinivasan Be Exxon-Mobile's Justice?
By Elana Schor, Politico
12 March 16
His work as an attorney representing Enron's former CEO and ExxonMobil
raises hackles among some eco-activists.
he prospect of President Barack Obama tapping Sri Srinivasan for the
Supreme Court is spawning a sharp debate among at least one part of the
Democrats' liberal grass roots - environmentalists turned off by his
high-profile defense of giant fossil fuel companies.
The federal appellate court judge has emerged as an early favorite to
replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, given Srinivasan's sterling
educational and professional credentials, his bipartisan work history and
his inspiring biography as an immigrant who has risen to the highest ranks
of the legal profession. But his history of representing large corporations
runs the risk of alienating Obama allies looking to gauge his
still-developing record on key liberal priorities.
Srinivasan's work on human rights cases in which he defended ExxonMobil and
the mining company Rio Tinto have raised particular objections from
environmentalists. He also represented that enduring symbol of corporate
excess, former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling, in the appeal of the executive's
fraud and conspiracy convictions.
"Any judge that sides with Big Oil over the American people has no place on
our Supreme Court," said Jane Kleeb, a Nebraska activist who helped lead the
grass-roots campaign that killed the Keystone XL oil pipeline, in an email
to POLITICO on Tuesday.
"Corporate interests have trumped citizens' concerns for too long," she
added. "Folks in the heartland will not look the other way of Srinivasan
representing both Enron and Exxon, which denies climate science and pollutes
our land and water."
Jamie Henn, co-founder of the green group 350.org, called Srinivasan's work
for Exxon a "deeply disturbing" aspect of a "mixed" resume. During his time
at the firm O'Melveny & Myers, Srinivasan represented Exxon in a
long-running battle over alleged human rights abuses by members of the
Indonesian military whom the oil giant had hired to work on security at a
major natural gas plant.
"We hope that knowing what we all now know about Exxon and its deceit, he
wouldn't still want to work for them," Henn said by email. "No decent person
should."
Another environmentalist tracking the nomination said activists "are aware
of Srinivasan's troubling history representing Exxon . but honestly I don't
think anyone has made up their mind."
Exxon declined Tuesday to comment on the debate over Srinivasan's work
representing the company. The discussion among activists began over the
weekend following the news of Scalia's death, which occurred just days after
he and the four other conservative justices shocked the administration by
ordering an indefinite delay in Obama's marquee climate change regulations.
Greens held a spirited debate about Srinivasan on Tuesday afternoon during a
conference call among representatives of several groups, according to one
activist familiar with the discussions. They decided to keep evaluating
Srinivasan's record before making more definitive statements.
The challenge Srinivasan's nomination would pose to environmentalists
mirrors the struggle many of the activists face in the Democratic
presidential primary, in which Bernie Sanders has captured green hearts with
his blanket disavowals of the fossil fuel industry's influence - something
Hillary Clinton is only lately trying to match.
Srinivasan's work for Exxon and Rio Tinto, in a since-dismissed dispute over
human rights violations in Papua New Guinea, sparked harsh criticism from
one green group after Obama tapped him for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
in 2012.
The India-born judge, who emigrated to the U.S. as a young child,
"repeatedly took extreme positions that would demolish one of the few
existing avenues of legal accountability for violations of the international
law of human rights," EarthRights International wrote to senators in 2013.
ERI told POLITICO on Tuesday that "we have reconsidered our position" and
neither support nor oppose his possible nomination to the Supreme Court,
"although we continue to believe the Senate should receive full information
about his work as a government lawyer that may have benefited his former
corporate clients."
ERI may well have shifted thanks to several Srinivasan decisions that upheld
environmental regulations since he joined the D.C. appeals court. That court
is often a proving ground for jurists on the Supreme Court shortlist.
One of his earliest rulings has had a notable impact on environmental law:
In 2014, Srinivasan joined two other D.C. Circuit judges in tossing out part
of an Environmental Protection Agency cement rule that had shielded
companies from lawsuits over pollution released during malfunctions. The EPA
broadened the impact of that ruling by ordering states to drop similar
corporate liability protections from their Clean Air Act compliance plans,
which activists hailed as a win for low-income communities near power
plants, refineries and other industrial sites.
Whether or not Srinivasan's recent judicial record balances out his past
corporate client list, some greens are more worried about Republicans' vow
to keep Scalia's seat vacant until after Obama leaves office than about
making climate change a top-tier issue during judicial confirmation debates.
"We're more focused on [Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell and other senators
who have said there shouldn't be a nominee until after the election," League
of Conservation Voters senior vice president Tiernan Sittenfeld said.
Other environmentalists are counseling their fellow activists that
private-sector lawyers - such as Srinivasan used to - "have a duty to argue,
to the best of their ability, for their clients" regardless of their own
values, in the words of Greenpeace attorney Naomi Ages.
As for Srinivasan's harsher green critics, Ages said, "While I can't speak
on their behalf, of course their knee-jerk reaction might be to question
someone based on a client they've represented."
Srinivasan's short confirmation hearing for the D.C. Circuit, in May 2013,
offered little insight as to the potential overlap between his
private-sector work and his public face on the bench.
"I don't have an overarching, grand unified judicial philosophy that I would
bring with me to the bench," Srinivasan told senators then, adding that he
would "approach it in some sense in the position of a litigator."
Brad Johnson, executive director of the green group Climate Hawks Vote, was
still skeptical of Srinivasan's corporate background. "There are enough
fully qualified candidates for the Supreme Court that I personally don't
think it's necessary to pick someone who you have to ask these questions
about," he said Tuesday.
Still, he added, activist groups are keenly aware that "to challenge
President Obama on a decision is something that takes a lot of work to do
correctly. It's important that the environmental movement be very clear with
the American public about how crucial the Supreme Court is to the future of
climate change."
In various other cases since joining the appeals court, Srinivasan has sided
with the Obama administration, including upholding an EPA program enhancing
oversight of mine permits and keeping in place a $72 million fine against a
Volvo subsidiary in a case involving cheating on emissions tests. Last year,
he rejected various challenges from both environmentalists and industry
groups to EPA's list of areas that failed to meet a 2008 standard for ozone
pollution.
Srinivasan joined two other judges in 2014 to say EPA had gone too far with
a rule that eased some state deadlines for ozone compliance - a ruling that
sided with environmental groups. He has also ruled that environmentalists
could sue to seek historical protections that would block mining on a West
Virginia mountain.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
