Here’s this week’s Left of Lansing “Friday Short.”
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office argued in a federal appellate court that the fight to shut down the Line 5 oil pipeline belongs in a state court, and not in federal court.
Enbridge, which owns the pipeline, argues that due to U.S.-Canadian treaty from 1977 means the battle ought to remain in federal court.
But why isn’t the Michigan Republican Party joining in Nessel’s effort to protect Michigan’s rights to protect herself against a foreign oil company?
Republicans argue Texas has the right to protect its border, and their laws should override federal immigration laws due to “states’ rights.”
Doesn’t Michigan have the same right to protect itself from a Canadian oil company possibly doing economic and environmental harm to her?
–Pat
Please, subscribe to the podcast, download each episode, and give it a good review if you can!
leftoflansing@gmail.com
NOTES:
“Michigan attorney general argues Line 5 lawsuit should be sent back to state court.” By Anna Liz Nichols of Michigan Advance
“Federal judge orders Enbridge to shut down Line 5 in three years, pay tribe $5 million.” By Erik Gunn of Michigan Advance
“What to know about SB 4, the Texas immigration law in the courts now.” By Becky Sullivan of NPR
“Report: Shutting down Line 5 would increase gas prices half a penny.” By Lily Bohlke of The Detroit Metro Times
“Column: Gas price hikes are another Enbridge scare tactic.” By Gary Street in Michigan Advance
“Study: Partial Line 5 shutdown has not impacted gas prices, despite Enbridge warnings.” By Laina G. Stebbins of
Mackinac Bridge Photo by Pat Johnston (2023)
