 |
Re: Kern County mounts defense of oil train shipments
Author: T.J.
Date: 08-29-2014 - 15:46
> One must wonder where the money came from (and continues to come from) for all those well-paid lawyers. . . . .
Not at all; there is no need to wonder!
And actually, virtually none of environmental and NYMBY litigation is pro-bono. Shyster lawyers are drawn to it like flies to shi! Legal expenses are paid out of regular federal grants to many environmental organizations; whose sole function seems to be to sue whenever a governmental regulatory agency at any level fails to see things THEIR way.
This practice goes back to the early days of federal regulation specific to environmental issues; provision for it being included in legislation signed by Richard Nixon (if memory serves), and later greatly amplified by Jimmy Carter and again by Bill Clinton. Also included in this legislation were provisions that gave these organizations very special standing in federal court to sue even when they had no direct involvement in the issue, nor were injured in any way (nobody else gets that special standing - To sue you have to have "Standing" before the court, having been directly harmed in some way, or otherwise are directly involved).
These provisions were hotly debated in the 70s, but environmentalists insisted that elected or appointed officials could not be trusted to actually enforce the new laws as written, let alone already existing laws; unless there was this special ability to sue, and the funds with which to pay legal expenses. Eventually compromise was reached and Nixon signed it into law.
Unfortunately, the checks and balances that were embodied in that compromise were rather quietly stripped out of the law by subsequent Presidents/Congresses; resulting in the now existing system of federally funded vigilante extortion, which indefinitely stalls almost all projects, whether good for the environment or not, whether approved by voters or not.
Worse yet, there is no possible accommodation that can be made to one environmental group, that will not elicit another lawsuit by another group. There is no way that anything can be settled once and for all - as no group can speak for anyone but themselves. Thus duly elected and appointed officials have been stripped of any power to expeditiously resolve anything. Hence, the assertion that these private organizations are nothing but vigilante groups, completely bypassing any democratic due-process.
Not at all; there is no need to wonder!
And actually, virtually none of environmental and NYMBY litigation is pro-bono. Shyster lawyers are drawn to it like flies to shi! Legal expenses are paid out of regular federal grants to many environmental organizations; whose sole function seems to be to sue whenever a governmental regulatory agency at any level fails to see things THEIR way.
This practice goes back to the early days of federal regulation specific to environmental issues; provision for it being included in legislation signed by Richard Nixon (if memory serves), and later greatly amplified by Jimmy Carter and again by Bill Clinton. Also included in this legislation were provisions that gave these organizations very special standing in federal court to sue even when they had no direct involvement in the issue, nor were injured in any way (nobody else gets that special standing - To sue you have to have "Standing" before the court, having been directly harmed in some way, or otherwise are directly involved).
These provisions were hotly debated in the 70s, but environmentalists insisted that elected or appointed officials could not be trusted to actually enforce the new laws as written, let alone already existing laws; unless there was this special ability to sue, and the funds with which to pay legal expenses. Eventually compromise was reached and Nixon signed it into law.
Unfortunately, the checks and balances that were embodied in that compromise were rather quietly stripped out of the law by subsequent Presidents/Congresses; resulting in the now existing system of federally funded vigilante extortion, which indefinitely stalls almost all projects, whether good for the environment or not, whether approved by voters or not.
Worse yet, there is no possible accommodation that can be made to one environmental group, that will not elicit another lawsuit by another group. There is no way that anything can be settled once and for all - as no group can speak for anyone but themselves. Thus duly elected and appointed officials have been stripped of any power to expeditiously resolve anything. Hence, the assertion that these private organizations are nothing but vigilante groups, completely bypassing any democratic due-process.
