GW lawsuit tossed

[1969912 0]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jQAaCpWzVePSzCksngNcUjx7ct9g

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Rookie120 0]

Not what I expected from a San Francisco judge but I am glad he threw out this one. It had BS written all over it. It looked like a money grabbing expedition.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[1969912 0]

Yeah, it was pretty flaky, even coming from "Moonbeam" Brown.

This kind of thing is just starting out and won't get any better.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

This kind of thing is just starting out and won't get any better.

I dont think it will. Whats next? Sue the truckers for burning to much diesel? Or airlines for all the Jet-A they burn? How about a few lawsuits against DZ's for contributing to GW. Where does this crap stop?

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[1969912 0]

It won't stop.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

This kind of thing is just starting out and won't get any better.

I dont think it will. Whats next? Sue the truckers for burning to much diesel? Or airlines for all the Jet-A they burn? How about a few lawsuits against DZ's for contributing to GW. Where does this crap stop?

Logically speaking it's no different than sueing the tobacco companies for causing cancer. If they are covering things up like the tobacco companies then they should be held liable and be required to fix the problems they are causing. The thing is that if Global Warming turns out to be real, it doesn't just affect us....it affects everybody on the planet, their kids, and the generations to come. Is that worth a few billion dollars to the car and oil companies?

...and you're in violation of your face!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Logically speaking it's no different than sueing the tobacco companies for causing cancer.

Show me a few thousand death certificates listing the cause of death as attributable to global warming, and I'll buy your argument. Global warming hasnt' been proven to have kiledl thousands of Californians.

You may notice that they aren't suing utilities, whose coal fired plant cause loads of global warming.

Quote

If they are covering things up like the tobacco companies then they should be held liable and be required to fix the problems they are causing.

That's the problem - the judge has no idea how to gauge what problems the automakers are causing because the proof is far too speculative to award any damages.

Quote

The thing is that if Global Warming turns out to be real

Yes. "if." I'll file a suit against you. "If sv3n happens to kill a family of 3 in a car wreck, it will affect the friends and families of the victims. That thought alone should be worth a couple hundred thousand from him." (His insurers will pay it, anyway).

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Logically speaking it's no different than sueing the tobacco companies for causing cancer.

Show me a few thousand death certificates listing the cause of death as attributable to global warming, and I'll buy your argument. Global warming hasnt' been proven to have kiledl thousands of Californians.

You may notice that they aren't suing utilities, whose coal fired plant cause loads of global warming.

Quote

If they are covering things up like the tobacco companies then they should be held liable and be required to fix the problems they are causing.

That's the problem - the judge has no idea how to gauge what problems the automakers are causing because the proof is far too speculative to award any damages.

Quote

The thing is that if Global Warming turns out to be real

Yes. "if." I'll file a suit against you. "If sv3n happens to kill a family of 3 in a car wreck, it will affect the friends and families of the victims. That thought alone should be worth a couple hundred thousand from him." (His insurers will pay it, anyway).

I agree with you a hundred percent......the proof needs to be there. The problem therein is that an organization does a study and then the oil/auto companies pay someone to do their own study with the results that they want.........who do you believe? Right. So what do we do, keep going over these studies or take a survey of all scientists in the field or make the study to end all studies on the field?

From the GW stand point the recent major storms like Katrina are caused by global warming........they are also trying to prevent things like the glaciers melting, the polar icecaps melting, etc...which all would have great catastrophic outcomes which would have a large loss of life. So there's the loss of life.

If the oil/auto companies are creating false studies like the tobacco companies are then they should be held liable.

Smog is obviously real........so emissions are having an affect on the environment. Who's responsible? An unbiased study would come out with answers on that. And from there we would move on to hold those people liable for their share.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[lawrocket 3]

Absolutely! I agree with you. However, this is a political question - not a legal one. This is something for which the government has administrative agencies that dispense the justice and mere nuisance is not appropriate because of the problems of proof and the problems of a political question.

Judges have no business in a political question - especially in a federal court where it is a standard for non-justiciability.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,183]

Quote

Judges have no business in a political question - especially in a federal court where it is a standard for non-justiciability.

Ha ha. Maybe you should read Jeffrey Toobin's new book "The Nine".

Funny how so many SCOTUS decisions split along political lines, don't you think?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Absolutely! I agree with you. However, this is a political question - not a legal one. This is something for which the government has administrative agencies that dispense the justice and mere nuisance is not appropriate because of the problems of proof and the problems of a political question.

Judges have no business in a political question - especially in a federal court where it is a standard for non-justiciability.

I wouldn't really say it's a political question and if it was left up to politics I don't believe that the issue would be resolved unfortunately.

Take Bush for instance, his family made money off of oil right......he's got ties to Saudi Arabia through the oil business. Do you thing he's gonna put into affect an emissions standard? No the first thing he did is put in place laws that took the regulations off of companies. He refused to put in an emissions cap with the UN even though we produce the most emissions in the world. He's backed by oil. And with any other politician you are going run into that "who ever they're backed by they're gonna vote for" problem. Takeaway the backing from the get go and that wouldn't be an issue, but that's not how it works now.

Anyways, you put that in a court and there should be no backers..........a judge or supreme court should be impartial (not saying they will be, but there would be more chance of it) whereas politicians are by no means required to be.

...and you're in violation of your face!