T Judah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anybody at all can sue, claiming an inadequate
> EIR, or claiming non-compliance with an approved
> report. It doesn't matter if the facts justify
> the action or not - they can not be easily
> dismissed for lack of evidence. the case almost
> always has to get heard, even if frivolous. It's
> all in the federal law books.

I work for an agency against which someone tried to bring a lawsuit regarding an EIS in the 1990s. The case was thrown out by the court as frivolous.

>
> Some wacko President gave them that legal standing
> way back when (If I recall correctly, it was in
> mid to late 70s).

If it was the mid 70s, that would be Richard Nixon or Gerald Ford.

After that, it was no longer
> necessary to be an "involved party" in in order to
> have legal standing to sue - at least for
> environmental lawsuits. At the same time, they
> also wrote into the law that they also can get
> federal grant money to finance these environmental
> lawsuits.

Does the fact they "can" get federal grant money mean they always do get federal grant money.

>
> So of course it's now a gravy train for every
> shyster with extra time on his hands. You and I
> pay twice, first for the grant money from our
> taxes; then again when we loose our jobs to this
> idiocy. What is even more appalling is that it
> seems so few people are actually aware of these
> special arrangements that enable every
> environmental vigilante from hell to breakfast the
> right to sue and the money to pay for it too!

I think you've grossly overstated what's going on. Yes, there are lots of environmental lawsuits, but not everyone inclined to file a suite does so. some in the environmental community actually try to meet with companies and organizations to address pollution concerns. But maybe this is never covered by the media you choose to get your information from.

>
> I suppose it is because the media rarely tells the
> whole story about what those fools we elect are
> actually doing - That is if they actually cover it
> at all. We rarely here about most of it. We
> always find out the hard way - later, after it's
> already a done deal. Hell those fools in congress
> no longer find it necessary to even read the bills
> anyhow before they vote on them. Even they don't
> know what laws THEY have passed.
>
> Will Rogers once quipped: "If CON is the opposite
> of PRO, does this mean that CONgress is the
> opposite of PROgress?

With the House of Representatives dominated by Tea-bagger Republicans who are intensely hostile to environmental protection measures, the EPA and the Department of the Interior, I'd say you've hit the nail on the head!