PDA

View Full Version : Congress - Dems want to give people the right to sue on behalf of global warming



Aggie Hoopsfan
04-11-2009, 08:38 AM
Unfuckingbelievable.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/10/report-climate-provision-allow-global-warming-victims-sue/


An under-the-radar provision in a House climate bill would give plaintiffs who claim to be victims of global warming a way to sue the federal government or businesses, according to a report Friday in The Washington Times.

The Times reported that Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts added it into a bill they authored.

The provision, which was just released, reportedly would set grounds for plaintiffs who has "suffered" or expect to suffer "harm" attributable at least in part to government inaction. The provision defines "harm" as "any effect of air pollution (including climate change)," according to the Times. Plaintiffs could seek up to $75,000 in damages a year from the government, with $1.5 million being the maximum total payout.

The Times reported that Waxman is trying to accelerate passage for the bill through his committee, as the Senate begins drafting its own version.

Full original story here:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/10/climate-bill-could-trigger-lawsuit-landslide/

Fuck these idiots. :td

jack sommerset
04-11-2009, 09:31 AM
Too funny

Wild Cobra
04-11-2009, 10:14 AM
probably just another way to pay their friends.

Cant_Be_Faded
04-11-2009, 11:26 AM
Ah think the puppet ahn tha right shares mah views more!

LnGrrrR
04-12-2009, 03:12 PM
Yeah, that sounds pretty dumb. I mean, even if the bill passes with that in there, I'd like to see how they're going to determine standing.

FaithInOne
04-12-2009, 03:44 PM
Cali really needs to just get the fuck out of the Union.

What a cancer.

Winehole23
04-12-2009, 04:02 PM
Yeah, that sounds pretty dumb. I mean, even if the bill passes with that in there, I'd like to see how they're going to determine standing.That's what I thought. As hard as may be to prove harm from regulation, proving a "reasonable expectation of harm" sounds even more difficult to me.