The Yankers and the Yankees

Yes to "Dump Sorrell" n/t (4.00 / 1)

---

by: PeteySweety @ Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 16:15:10 PM UTC

Who?? (4.00 / 1)

The next Attorney General will be - who???  

---

by: reelvermonter @ Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 16:35:24 PM UTC

TJ Donovan would be the logical choice. (4.00 / 2)

He's very smart, articulate and is a consistent advocate of doing what is right rather than what is politically expedient. Sorrell is all about the glorification of Sorrell and it shows. Over the last few years the AG's office has lost much of its top talent and a dearth of new ideas and strategies has taken their place. The Attorney General's office has become reactive rather than proactive and he and his administration are presiding over, from what I hear, the most demoralized workforce in state government. Sorrell had his day but has become stale and is not serving the people of Vermont well. Its time for new blood to invigorate an office that has become top heavy, inefficient and ineffective.

---

by: Roy Moss @ Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 13:50:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorrell's next job (4.00 / 1)

He's got a great future as a trainer on The Biggest Loser – the perfect placement for someone so obsessed with other people's diets.

And he'll have a bonus: that Vermont "glow."

NanuqFC
The human race has today the means for annihilating itself ... by careless handling of atomic technology through a slow process of poisoning and of deterioration in its genetic structure. ~ Max Born (Nobel Prize winner for Physics, 1954; from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, June 1957)

---

by: NanuqFC @ Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 16:01:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

one view only (0.00 / 0)

"Vermont Law School Professor Cheryl Hanna said that the state would have little to no chance at overturning Murtha's decision"

I heard one of her colleagues from the VLS say something quite different on VPR this morning. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals could very well look askance at Judge Murtha's attempt to read the minds of legislators. Prof. Parenteau (sp?) said he put the state's chances at 50 - 50.

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 16:39:23 PM UTC

Yes (0.00 / 0)

He sounded much more hopeful (or less defeated) and gave the impression all all was not lost.
Also he has the experience of having gone against Entergy's lawyers in court battle before.

---

by: BP @ Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 17:16:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Judge Murtha's attempt to read the minds of legislators (0.00 / 0)

He didn't read their minds, he read the testimony of citizens and deliberations of legislators.  And because he heard the word 'safety' even once, he tossed out Acts 160 and 74.

---

by: Comrade Rutherford @ Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 17:55:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

good questions and analysis (4.00 / 1)

Sorrell doesn't impress me either.  It didn't help that he communicated that the state had a strong case.

Although, I don't understand the decision given Act 160 doesn't mention safety and that presumably states should have the voice to commission or decommission a nuclear power plant.  Apparently the NRC runs the world, we just live in it.

---

by: frankly @ Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 17:23:09 PM UTC

Act 160 doesn't mention safety, so what gives? (3.00 / 1)

Judge Murtha spent hours and hours poring over recordings of the Vermont house and senate.  Murtha based his rejection of Acts 160 and 74 on the fact that he heard the word 'safety' mentioned by various representatives and vermont residents.  

Since the NRC is the sole arbiter of nuclear safety, Murtha decided that since someone mentioned the concept of safety during discussions in the Vermont house and senate, that the language in Acts 160 and 74 are Code Words that represent 'safety', and, again, since safety is only the purview of the NRC, therefore Acts 160 and 74 are null and void.

The close attention to 'background chatter' that Murtha paid to discussions and testimony in the Vermont house and senate is NOT normal in judicial proceedings.  The normal practice is to look only at the Letter of the Law.  This can be viewed as a perfect example of judicial 'activism', looking beyond the scope of the law as written and coming to a conclusion based on 'facts not in evidence'.

I believe, and others do as well, that Murtha's obsession over the use of the word safety in discussions, and ignoring that 'safety' does not appear in the actual laws themselves, give Vermont a good position to appeal Murtha's ruling.

Vermont should appeal.

---

by: Comrade Rutherford @ Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 17:52:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So then, the state legislature, the governor (4.00 / 1)

can not "by law" protect its citizens from radiation, water pollution and other hazards -- from any industry and only a certifiable biased revolving door between regulators and industry apparatchiks NRC - are just A - OK?

Is this not what this ruling is saying? National implications galore just read the latest New York time article and comments.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01...

Forgetting Entergy and Vermont Yankee for a second, it is incredibly rich in scope of the hypocrisy of "states rights" by supporters of nuclear power with cross grain in so many ways. Somehow I do not think this is the last on this.
I hope the mashing of teeth heard in the state house is put to good use and focus

---

by: Lookin for a fight @ Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 17:57:16 PM UTC

Thanks for the link. (0.00 / 0)

It's nice to know that there truly is alarm in other parts of the country over this decision.

I think it is a remarkable coincidence that that "Frontline" gloss on the future of nuclear energy conveniently was aired just a couple of days before the decision was handed down.

---

by: Sue Prent @ Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 18:50:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This occurred to me, as well: (0.00 / 0)

In a moment of pure political cynicism, I find myself thinking that the decision is a big fat win-win for Governor Shumlin. He gets credit for vocally opposing Vermont Yankee, but he doesn't have to deal with the consequences of an actual closure.

---

by: Sue Prent @ Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 18:45:32 PM UTC

waffled (0.00 / 0)

Don't forget Sorrell waffled on the Entergy execs "mis-statements" just 6 months ago too.

---

by: plainvanilla @ Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 20:05:52 PM UTC

Another idea (0.00 / 0)

Here's a novel idea - Tom Salmon for Attorney General.  He is trying to squeeze $3M out of poor ol' Milton.  Think how much he could get from Entergy?

---

by: reelvermonter @ Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 20:13:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

forget about it (4.00 / 1)

recall that Tom carried water for Entergy

this from one of my campaign press releases about why he had not yet released an audit of the VY decommissioning fund after almost three years

"...the Auditor was visited by officials from Entergy during the legislative debate over S.373.  Shortly thereafter Salmon sent a letter to all legislators expressing concern that "S.373 could add undue risk to the state."  The letter was sent on April 22, 2008, over five months after the Auditor was asked to audit the decommissioning fund.  But, Hoffer asked "having not completed the audit, on what basis did Salmon decide that S.373 'could add undue risk to the state.'"  

Hoffer continued, "We will never know what transpired in those conversations between Tom Salmon and Entergy officials, but it's not unreasonable to ask if Mr. Salmon feels biased or personally impaired in the matter."  

Hoffer notes that "Government Auditing Standards make it clear that 'auditors...must be free from personal impairments' to carry out their duties objectively."  

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 21:32:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Justice for Woody (0.00 / 0)

Sorrel should go.

Let m out to pasture.

gfv

---

by: gfv @ Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 07:19:54 AM UTC