http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/california.cars.reut/index.html
Looks like the enitre state of California is trying to sue Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, Chrysler, and Nissan for causing Global Warming.
Gore is behind this. I can just tell…
Wow people are dumb, just wow
CA Attorney General Bill Lockyer is behind it.
I hate this abuse of the legal system – if the government wants to regulate something, it should pass laws or regulations. Regulation by lawsuit is trying to do an end run on the political/electoral consequences of what Lockyer surely knows would be an unpopular regulation – in other words, an abuse of the most basic of the “checks and balances” of a representative government.
It is a publicity stunt that obviously worked.
Well when the government could not care less in general, and the automakers figure people are still buying them, why should they stop making cars that get terrible gas mileage. I see this as a step in the right direction. Car makers should feel some of the responsibilty of what has happened. They know they sell that car and what it will do over time to the planet.
Not all that much differnt than a drug dealer selling drugs when he knows what will happen. I know the two are completely different issues, but still similar.
This is your planet on global warming!
[quote]moderatextreme wrote:
Well when the government could not care less in general, and the automakers figure people are still buying them, why should they stop making cars that get terrible gas mileage. I see this as a step in the right direction. Car makers should feel some of the responsibilty of what has happened. They know they sell that car and what it will do over time to the planet.
Not all that much differnt than a drug dealer selling drugs when he knows what will happen. I know the two are completely different issues, but still similar.
This is your planet on global warming![/quote]
If the government indeed feels this way it should pass a law or a regulation on gas mileage or emissions. A regulation should not be created by the government via a lawsuit.
For your analogy: the government passed laws against drugs, it didn’t go out and sue the residents of the county of Humboldt.
I don’t believe people are causing global warming. There have always been trends of heating and cooling on this planet. Though the planet may be heating up I consider it a natural process.
[quote]five-twelve wrote:
I don’t believe people are causing global warming. There have always been trends of heating and cooling on this planet. Though the planet may be heating up I consider it a natural process.[/quote]
Careful five-twelve, your gonna get some damn angry posie sniffers on your ass now!!! :-]
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
five-twelve wrote:
I don’t believe people are causing global warming. There have always been trends of heating and cooling on this planet. Though the planet may be heating up I consider it a natural process.
Careful five-twelve, your gonna get some damn angry posie sniffers on your ass now!!! :-]
[/quote]
thanks for the heads up!
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
CA Attorney General Bill Lockyer is behind it.
I hate this abuse of the legal system – if the government wants to regulate something, it should pass laws or regulations. Regulation by lawsuit is trying to do an end run on the political/electoral consequences of what Lockyer surely knows would be an unpopular regulation – in other words, an abuse of the most basic of the “checks and balances” of a representative government.[/quote]
BB,
I’m disappointed at you. Considering your profession, you should know better than to post without actually reading the article:
"
It comes less than a month after California lawmakers adopted the nation’s first global warming law mandating a cut in greenhouse gas emissions.
California has also targeted the auto industry with first-in-the-nation rules adopted in 2004 requiring car makers to force cuts in tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks.
Automakers, however, have so far blocked those rules with their own legal action – prompting one analyst to say California’s lawsuit represents a way for California to pressure car manufacturers to accept the rules.
"
[quote]hspder wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
CA Attorney General Bill Lockyer is behind it.
I hate this abuse of the legal system – if the government wants to regulate something, it should pass laws or regulations. Regulation by lawsuit is trying to do an end run on the political/electoral consequences of what Lockyer surely knows would be an unpopular regulation – in other words, an abuse of the most basic of the “checks and balances” of a representative government.
BB,
I’m disappointed at you. Considering your profession, you should know better than to post without actually reading the article:
"
It comes less than a month after California lawmakers adopted the nation’s first global warming law mandating a cut in greenhouse gas emissions.
California has also targeted the auto industry with first-in-the-nation rules adopted in 2004 requiring car makers to force cuts in tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks.
Automakers, however, have so far blocked those rules with their own legal action – prompting one analyst to say California’s lawsuit represents a way for California to pressure car manufacturers to accept the rules.
"[/quote]
My bad – I didn’t read it. I’m reflexively against these sorts of lawsuits, but I’m glad that CA decided to pass a regulation if that’s what they wanted to do.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
hspder wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
CA Attorney General Bill Lockyer is behind it.
I hate this abuse of the legal system – if the government wants to regulate something, it should pass laws or regulations. Regulation by lawsuit is trying to do an end run on the political/electoral consequences of what Lockyer surely knows would be an unpopular regulation – in other words, an abuse of the most basic of the “checks and balances” of a representative government.
BB,
I’m disappointed at you. Considering your profession, you should know better than to post without actually reading the article:
"
It comes less than a month after California lawmakers adopted the nation’s first global warming law mandating a cut in greenhouse gas emissions.
California has also targeted the auto industry with first-in-the-nation rules adopted in 2004 requiring car makers to force cuts in tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks.
Automakers, however, have so far blocked those rules with their own legal action – prompting one analyst to say California’s lawsuit represents a way for California to pressure car manufacturers to accept the rules.
"
My bad – I didn’t read it. I’m reflexively against these sorts of lawsuits, but I’m glad that CA decided to pass a regulation if that’s what they wanted to do.[/quote]
I still have a problem with it. The end does not always justify the means.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
hspder wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
CA Attorney General Bill Lockyer is behind it.
I hate this abuse of the legal system – if the government wants to regulate something, it should pass laws or regulations. Regulation by lawsuit is trying to do an end run on the political/electoral consequences of what Lockyer surely knows would be an unpopular regulation – in other words, an abuse of the most basic of the “checks and balances” of a representative government.
BB,
I’m disappointed at you. Considering your profession, you should know better than to post without actually reading the article:
"
It comes less than a month after California lawmakers adopted the nation’s first global warming law mandating a cut in greenhouse gas emissions.
California has also targeted the auto industry with first-in-the-nation rules adopted in 2004 requiring car makers to force cuts in tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks.
Automakers, however, have so far blocked those rules with their own legal action – prompting one analyst to say California’s lawsuit represents a way for California to pressure car manufacturers to accept the rules.
"
My bad – I didn’t read it. I’m reflexively against these sorts of lawsuits, but I’m glad that CA decided to pass a regulation if that’s what they wanted to do.
[/quote]
I think suing to enforce a California law is somewhat better, but I can’t imagine the case making it very far at all.
[quote]ExNole wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
hspder wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
CA Attorney General Bill Lockyer is behind it.
I hate this abuse of the legal system – if the government wants to regulate something, it should pass laws or regulations. Regulation by lawsuit is trying to do an end run on the political/electoral consequences of what Lockyer surely knows would be an unpopular regulation – in other words, an abuse of the most basic of the “checks and balances” of a representative government.
BB,
I’m disappointed at you. Considering your profession, you should know better than to post without actually reading the article:
"
It comes less than a month after California lawmakers adopted the nation’s first global warming law mandating a cut in greenhouse gas emissions.
California has also targeted the auto industry with first-in-the-nation rules adopted in 2004 requiring car makers to force cuts in tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks.
Automakers, however, have so far blocked those rules with their own legal action – prompting one analyst to say California’s lawsuit represents a way for California to pressure car manufacturers to accept the rules.
"
My bad – I didn’t read it. I’m reflexively against these sorts of lawsuits, but I’m glad that CA decided to pass a regulation if that’s what they wanted to do.
I think suing to enforce a California law is somewhat better, but I can’t imagine the case making it very far at all. [/quote]
What do you mean by ‘very far’?
The Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction.
CA courts are going to shove this down the automakers throats and the appeal process will never end.
Why not just boycott selling gas to Cali? Make them find their own oil supply and quit fucking it up for the rest of us.
My bet would be that offshore drilling permits would skyrocket.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Why not just boycott selling gas to Cali? Make them find their own oil supply and quit fucking it up for the rest of us.
My bet would be that offshore drilling permits would skyrocket. [/quote]
uhh, cause we do have our own oil supply, it’s called every tanker that enters our ports. don’t be mad backwoods, someday you too might live in a real state.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction.
CA courts are going to shove this down the automakers throats and the appeal process will never end.[/quote]
The USSC would have final appellate jurisdiction if the automakers were making a federal-law or Constitutional law arguement. I’m not sure what their arguments are, but I’m betting they have at least one solid claim in there relating to preemption.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
The Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction.
CA courts are going to shove this down the automakers throats and the appeal process will never end.
The USSC would have final appellate jurisdiction if the automakers were making a federal-law or Constitutional law arguement. I’m not sure what their arguments are, but I’m betting they have at least one solid claim in there relating to preemption.[/quote]
Do you really want the SCOTUS involved in any way shape or form on this one?
Given this post by UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge, I think my initial reaction might have more merit:
[Internal links omitted]
Cars, Public Nuisances, and Global Warming: Bill Lockyer’s Latest Abuse of Power
Hoping to emulate NY attorney general’s Eliot Spitzer’s rise to political prominence, California attorney general Bill Lockyer has been busy sticking his nose into a host of places it doesn’t belong. For example, announcing that he has evidence to indict people in connection with the spying “scandal” at HP. Now he’s filed a “lawsuit against leading U.S. and Japanese auto manufacturers, alleging their vehicles? emissions have contributed significantly to global warming, harmed the resources, infrastructure and environmental health of California, and cost the state millions of dollars to address current and future effects.” The premise of the suit is that the cars are a public nuisance; i.e., “an unreasonable interference with a public right, or an action that interferes with or causes harm to life, health or property.”
This follows an earlier suit by Lockyer against power companies on much the same theory. The basic problem is that Lockyer is trying to use the courts to decide what is really a political question. (The US Chamber of Commerce filed a great brief in the power company case explaining why the courts are not an appropriate forum for this sort of legislation by adjudication; it’s recommended reading.)
The court before whom Lockyer’s suit has been filed should remember that Spitzer advanced a similar theory in a lawsuit against the gun industry. As the New York court explained in Spitzer v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., “Plaintiff State of New York, by its Attorney General, commenced this action with a complaint alleging that defendant corporations, which are handgun manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, have created, contributed to, and maintained a public nuisance by their respective manufacturing, distributing and marketing practices.” The court decisively rejected Spitzer’s argument, holding that “the Legislative and Executive branches are better suited to address the societal problems concerning the already heavily regulated commercial activity at issue.”
[i] Plaintiff’s attempt here to widen the range of common-law public nuisance claims in order to reach the legal handgun industry will not itself, if successful, engender a limitless number of public nuisance lawsuits by individuals against these particular defendants … However, giving a green light to a common-law public nuisance cause of action today will, in our judgment, likely open the courthouse doors to a flood of limitless, similar theories of public nuisance, not only against these defendants, but also against a wide and varied array of other commercial and manufacturing enterprises and activities.
All a creative mind would need to do is construct a scenario describing a known or perceived harm of a sort that can somehow be said to relate back to the way a company or an industry makes, markets and/or sells its non-defective, lawful product or service, and a public nuisance claim would be conceived and a lawsuit born. A variety of such lawsuits would leave the starting gate to be welcomed into the legal arena to run their cumbersome course, their vast cost and tenuous reasoning notwithstanding. Indeed, such lawsuits employed to address a host of societal problems would be invited into the courthouse whether the problems they target are real or perceived; whether the problems are in some way caused by, or perhaps merely preceded by, the defendants' completely lawful business practices; regardless of the remoteness of their actual cause or of their foreseeability; and regardless of the existence, remoteness, nature and extent of any intervening causes between defendants' lawful commercial conduct and the alleged harm.[/i]
Summary dismissal would seem to be called for.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
What do you mean by ‘very far’?
The Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction.
CA courts are going to shove this down the automakers throats and the appeal process will never end.[/quote]
I meant I doubt it will make it even to discovery.