And how far do you think that will get you? No China won't be sued because they will laugh at these swindlers but the idiots in the U.S. Congress will find a way to declare us guilty without a trial and give our money to some backwards ass country in Africa or South East Asia.
I wish I could say that I knew for sure this obvious ridiculousness would be thrown out of court and never get anywhere but I've seen too much of this B.S. to actually believe that.
15 comments:
How can a court enforce a law that does not exist? Maybe I'm wrong here but doesn't the legislative branch of government write the law? The courts can't (according to the constitution) rule on law that isn't written. If there is no law on this, how can there be a suit? The court is not designed to write law only to interperet law.
I think we need to have a week of American Idol all about the consitution. Maybe some people will get it then. We dont just make it up as we go. There is a very good system in place if we just follow it.
suits will come about as more and more regulations (i.e., laws) are put in place to reduce greenhouse gases and prevent other similar aspects of environmental degredation. those laws are relatively new and you can't sue someone for not complying with a regulation before it was even made law.
in terms of there not being a cause to sue without a law, i'm assuming it is in the area of torts and negligence theory that some of the fuzzier law suits will emanate.
however, it will take some time for enough case law to be compiled before this area of the law will become mainstream. and the issue of venue will always be a big sticking point.
and, by the way, not all laws come out of the legislative branch. many rules, orders and decisions come out of federal, state and local government administrative agencies.
also, the legislature writes laws (statutes and ordinances), but case law is judge-made law, including interpretations of constitutional provisions, of statutes enacted by legislatures and regulations created by administrative agencies.
oh, and case law, on the other hand, is judge-made law including constitutional provisions of statutes enacted by legislatures, and regulatoins created by administrative agencies.
bottom line is this is idiotic and we will end up paying for it anyway because the crazy left wants to declare co2 as a pollutant.
insane.
when you say, "we" -- who exactly are you referring to.
oh, and it's interesting how newt gingrich is on the trailer for the sundance winning documentary, "climate refugees." i don't see newt as a "crazy left" guy.
Yes, how crazy to want to do something about a serious planet-threating problem recognized by almost all scientists and scientific organizations, but still stubbornly denied by Exxon-funded scientists and crazy wingnuts.
When I say WE I mean the American Tax Payer.
I am not a gingrich fan in general, but either way nobody's perfect. I'm sure you will find this hard to believe but even Newt can be wrong sometimes.
if a corporation is sued because it did not conform to environmental regulations, then i believe it's the corporation that pays. not the tax payer. actually, the tax payer benefits because the company will be a better corporate citizen.
however, we as tax payers will lose when countries like china are not held to the same standards as american companies and our companies head overseas. then we all lose.
If a corporation is sued because of a bullshit claim like the customer didn't realize the coffee would be hot then we all think that's bullshit but mcdonalds will settle the case anyway and put a warning on their cups which their customers will ultimately pay for. However it's still bullshit.
If the U.N. or anyone else sues china they will not pay anyone anything. If the U.N. or whoever sues the U.S. and the U.S. has already declared co2 to be a pollutant then by default WE will have to settle the case and pay whatever it takes. Therefore, China will not be held to the same standard anyway, companies in the U.S. will continue to leave for more business friendly shores, and WE will be stuck paying the settlement.
In the fairy tale liberal world nobody needs money and everyone is equal and we all sing songs around the campfire. In the real world this is a disater, global warming is a scam, and WE will be worse off because of the Obama EPA pushing a political agenda and wrapping it in a lie about saving the earth.
I should sue Gary and Anita for wasting the planet's oxygen.
This is so silly of course they think its a good idea.
you're such the gentleman donkeyhue.
back to the point...if no one regulates the places putting out the most pollution. Butsomeone is making americans pay for unknown causes of all the bad things that happen in the world, Then this is really another way to kill the american market and not about the earth at all.
give Samw a seeegarr!
These lawsuits will be so frivolous, the most successful trial atty that capitalizes on them will likely be the next dem vp candidate.
Post a Comment