California Sues Auto Makers

[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.

BostonBarrister wrote:
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.

Marmadogg wrote:
Do you really want the SCOTUS involved in any way shape or form on this one?[/quote]

Not particularly – I was just pointing out that they could have appellate jurisdiction.

The appeal would probably be a lot like this one, in which the Washington Supreme Court decided a state law infringed on free-speech rights, and so the USSC had appellate jurisdiction over that question:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003277417_unioncase27m.html

You know whats funny about this.

if the state of California sues the Auto industry they are sueing on behalf of the public. Though it is the public that are buying the cars that they seem to hate so much.

Give me a fucking break. Goverments should stay the fuck out of everyones lives. They just fuck it up even more. I love how in New York they are considering illegal to use transfat when cooking.

I believe that people should stop eating that shit, but I will be damned if some politician tells me what I can and can’t eat.

[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]

Just pay attention to exactly who is suggesting that the whole ‘global warming’ issue is solely due to the earth’s natural processes, because it sure as hell isn’t anyone who knows what the hell they’re talking about.

::shakes his head::

It’s good to see a federal court that is not interested in stepping into the policy-making role of the legislature…

[i]Calif. suit on car greenhouse gases dismissed
Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:36pm EDT

By Adam Tanner

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge tossed out a lawsuit by California’s attorney general on Monday seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from six automakers for damaging the state with climate-changing greenhouse gases.

Martin Jenkins, a federal judge in the Northern District of California, said the issue of global warming should be decided in the political rather than legal arena.

“The Court finds that injecting itself into the global warming thicket at this juncture would require an initial policy determination of the type reserved for the political branches of government,” Jenkins wrote in approving the automakers’ motion to dismiss the case.
…[/i]

Read the whole thing.

[quote]mazilla wrote:
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.

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]

Yeah, but how many refineries??? Can’t do shit with crude without refining it.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s good to see a federal court that is not interested in stepping into the policy-making role of the legislature…

[i]Calif. suit on car greenhouse gases dismissed
Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:36pm EDT

By Adam Tanner

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge tossed out a lawsuit by California’s attorney general on Monday seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from six automakers for damaging the state with climate-changing greenhouse gases.

Martin Jenkins, a federal judge in the Northern District of California, said the issue of global warming should be decided in the political rather than legal arena.

“The Court finds that injecting itself into the global warming thicket at this juncture would require an initial policy determination of the type reserved for the political branches of government,” Jenkins wrote in approving the automakers’ motion to dismiss the case.
…[/i]

Read the whole thing.[/quote]

A Federal Judge in the 9th Circuit that is not interested in judicial legislation?

I call shenanigans.

Seriously - smartest call they could have made.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

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.
[/quote]

BB, I think this just may be a good thing. More times than not, lobbyists get in the way of good legislation. Auto makers have an extremely strong lobby corps.

Do corporations have the best intentions of the people of this country? No. Their only interest is profit, at the expense of all else. Responsible stewardship of communities is irrelevant. If it wasn’t for OSHA, working conditions would still be despicable and dangerous. Profit should be tempered with health and safety concerns, be they in the plant or in the environment.

Lobbyists already do an end around the Will of the People. Maybe it’s time for retaliation.

Auto makers buy congress to not pass laws. Who suffers?

If Humboldt had lobbyists like GM et al (or Budweiser et al), do you think Mary Jane would be illegal?

Finally, it’s a frivolous lawsuit. It can’t be won, as global warming (solely as a function of human activity) is a lie.

Recently, the CEOs of Chrysler, Ford and General Motors lunched with Senate leaders, telling them the one-third vehicle mileage increase proposed by George W. Bush and Barack Obama – you heard that right, Bush and Obama have offered nearly identical fuel-efficiency plans – was impossible. Rick Wagoner, CEO of General Motors, said at a news conference after the lunch that a one-third mileage improvement “doesn’t look achievable.”

This is exactly the kind of excuse-making that allowed Honda and Toyota to wrap their hands around the Big Three’s necks in the first place! As the UAW-Detroit contracts talks heat up, the relationship between mpg and saving Chrysler, Ford and General Motors bears exploring.

The National Academy of Sciences said in 2002 that a one-third improvement in mpg is practical using existing technology, and without sacrifice of safety or passenger comfort. Now, the U.S. automakers claim a one-third improvement can’t be done. It’s not that Detroit cannot achieve better fuel economy – it’s that Detroit doesn’t want to. What the current executive-suite suits at the Big Three want is to maximize their bonuses and stock options during their short stays at the top, then let somebody else take the blame for the next round of decline of the U.S. auto industry that is inevitable if fuel economy does not improve.

And that’s setting aside the national-security implications. A one-third increase in car and SUV mpg is what’s needed to break U.S. dependence on Persian Gulf oil. Wouldn’t it be nice if Detroit CEOs acted as though they cared about national security!

This summer, the Senate passed something that on paper seemed even better than the Bush-Obama plan, ordering a 40 percent mpg improvement by 2020; the House has yet to act. But although the Bush-Obama plan had teeth, specifying that carmakers show annual mpg improvement beginning immediately, the Senate provision contained a huge asterisk: There are no annual milestones, just a requirement that the mpg rise be accomplished by 2020.

That gives Detroit the green light to spend most of the next 13 years doing nothing about petroleum waste, and there is no endeavor in which American automakers are more accomplished than doing nothing about petroleum waste. Plus, the Senate bill contains a waiver provision – as the 2020 deadline approaches, automakers can request a waiver. Thus the Senate mpg bill, widely praised by gullible editorialists, actually is pure froth.

Now remember that little phrase, “the House has yet to act.” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who boasts about how she will take the bold steps the president will not, won’t allow a floor vote on any mileage provision. Pelosi says new mpg rules can be negotiated in conference committee – that is, in secret, with no public disclosure.
And she hasn’t even scheduled a conference.

George W. Bush proposed a strong, binding program of immediate mpg increases, and Democrats in the House refuse to allow an up-or-down public vote. The calculus is that Pelosi wants to prevent any kind of reform from passing so that, in the 2008 presidential election, Democrats can denounce Republicans for lack of progress on mpg. Wouldn’t it be nice if House Democrats acted as though they cared about national security!

Fortunately I just read that this legislation was shot down in flames. Thank God.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Fortunately I just read that this legislation was shot down in flames. Thank God.[/quote]

You don’t want a 50 hp truck?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

You wanna try a different link there, Zap?

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

You wanna try a different link there, Zap?
[/quote]

He is the best Brookings Institute Fellow/ Football columnist in AMerica today.

Scroll down far enough and you will find more.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

You wanna try a different link there, Zap?

He is the best Brookings Institute Fellow/ Football columnist in AMerica today.

Scroll down far enough and you will find more.[/quote]

Well I’ll be damned.

Didn’t think I’d ever see labor relations writings on ESPN’s Page 2.

My bad.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Fortunately I just read that this legislation was shot down in flames. Thank God.

You don’t want a 50 hp truck?[/quote]

Haha, NO! At least 350hp.