Lame
First, tobacco. Then gun makers. Now, automakers:
California is suing the auto industry over tailpipe emissions, marking the first time a state has sought monetary damages for the impact of global warming by vehicles.
Attorney General Bill Lockyer on Wednesday sued the six largest U.S. and Japanese automakers, claiming they have causing millions of dollars in damage by creating greenhouse gases.
Lockyer is suing on the theory that greenhouse gases are a “public nuisance” under both California and federal law, an argument similar to one being pursued in a case before the 2nd U.S. District Court of Appeals in New York.
It’s like the two biggest nanny states are at war with business or something.
Update: The National Association of Manufacturers calls it Grandstanding, Litigiousness.
September 21st, 2006 at 12:03 pm
It’d be interesting to see how they plan to go about proving any damages suffered, and then making a positive, beyond a reasonable doubt, linkage from the auto makers to the damage.
Which is necessary if they plan to collect any damages.
September 21st, 2006 at 12:46 pm
I hope they don’t sue me for breathing and emitting carbon dioxcide
FORONS
September 21st, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Wonder what would happen to the PRK if auto makers decided that selling cars there wasn’t worth the legal hassles. Probably end up looking more like mexiho than it does already.
September 21st, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Someone needs to inform Attorney General Bill Lockyer how the internal combustion engine works.
Dipshit.
This is why a recall option is needed. Of course in Knox County Mayor Ragsdale made sure no recall option is in the amended Knox County Charter.
September 21st, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Hey, now wait a minute! I think you’re going to have to turn in your small-l libertarian card. Becasue according to libertarian theory, regulation is eeevil, and the way that you make corporations behave, stop polluting, etc., is via the threat of lawsuits like this one.
While I’d love to believe you’re admitting that libertarian corporate theory is “lame” (indeed, it is), I somehow doubt this is the case. 🙂
September 21st, 2006 at 1:33 pm
I never much bought into Libertarian corporate theory, which is part of the reason I am a small l libertarian.
September 21st, 2006 at 1:43 pm
The case law for this was established during the tobbacco settlement suits. I don’t think they will have any large problem proving their case, according to established case law, in court. Carbon monoxide will kill you. Cars put it out. The car makers know it.
Wasn’t the tobbacco war a good thing!
Fast food next. Salt manufacturers. Mining, refining, et, et, et.
For the children, of course.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:30 pm
They aren’t talking about CO emissions, which, by the way often end up cleaner leaving the car than they do going in. They’re talking CO2 and global warming, which is a hideously stupid case to bring, given it’s been their charge to regulate emissions since CARB was instated. They can’t win a case against themselves…
September 21st, 2006 at 2:32 pm
I know, I know, small-l libertarianism according to SayUncle: “The government shouldn’t do things that I don’t think the government should do.” But of course, by that definition, everyone is a small-l libertarian. 🙂
September 21st, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Uh, no.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Sorry, the federal government… 😉
September 21st, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Uh, no. I just want the .gov to act like the constitution says what it says.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:32 pm
I keep wondering when gun makers, ammo manufacturers, tobacco producers and, now, auto companies, are going to reach the conclusion that doing business in Cali is more trouble than it’s worth. I realize that the Craptafornians aren’t stupid enough to put the automakers out of business, just extort some funds from them, the cost of which which will get passed along to the customers.
From ths mfg position, it’s a “so what”: you want to buy a car in Cali, pay another 5%. BFD, no sweat off their brow, etc.
I realize I’m dreaming, but what if entire segments of industries took a 5-year hiatus from the Cali market? No cars, no parts, no tires, no accessories. Other than NV and AZ booming, that is. Won’t happen, because even with .gov extortion programs it’s still a huge – and successful – market.
And, what Cali does might be providing an incentive for federal .gov expansion in an effort by mfgs to get standarized rules everywhere and minimize teh impact of Cali legislators, at the expense of nationwide regs.
September 21st, 2006 at 9:25 pm
The biggest problem with this lawsuit goes back to my original comment: in order to sue for damages, you have to prove that actual, quantifiable damages have occurred. In this case, that in itself is one heck of a stretch.
And once you’ve done that, you have to prove that the actions of the person or persons you’re suing is the proximate cause of those damages. Now, even if we accept as fact that (a) global warming is happening; (b) that it is caused by human action and not something that’s been going on through natural processes since the end of the Little Ice Age about a century and a half ago; and (c) that the automobile makers are the source of that human action.
Now, I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that, if we take (a) and (b) as fact, you’re still elft with the fact that the more proximate cause is not the auto makers, but in fact the drivers, since cars don’t emit any emissions at all when they’re shut down in the driveway. It’s not the fact the cars (and trucks, etc) have been built that’s causing the emissions-it’s the fact that they’re being driven.
And if you want to go further along that line, it would seem to me that the government would be next in line after the motor vehicle owners-since when those people drive their cars, they drive them on roads built by the government. If there were no roads, people wouldn’t drive cars, thus there would be no demand for cars, and if there were no demand, companies wouldn’t manufacture them.
So why isn’t Bill Lockyer suing (a) every motor vehicle owner in America (and Canada, and Europe, and the rest of the world for that matter); and (b) the governments that built the roads that the cars get driven on?
September 21st, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Heartless” I believe you are wrong. All you have to do is get a socialist, nutbag judge (and there are plenty of those) to go along with your BS extortion scheme.
Uncle: “It’s like the two biggest nanny states are at war with business or something.”
Yes, them and all Marxists, along with the Jihadis, and disgruntled, worthless losers everywhere.
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:28 am
I said when tobacco was the victim of a mugging that they should just say “No more sales in America.” Then layoff the workers they didn’t need to satisfy their international market. Yeah, it would have hurt them a little for a year, maybe three, but state sponsored extortion wouldn’t look so good when the state sued to make them resume, which it would have.
Same thing now. If the auto industry gives the stupid sonofabitch what he claims he wants, California will try to force them to resume business, when that doesn’t work, they will beg. If these companies keep getting extorted without calling the bluff, you and I get to pay for it. Nothing changes except our assets end up in government coffers, having been routed through evil business. Because business knows we must have their product and they can pass on the cost. If they really want to emerge victorious in this assault on business they will make the product unavailable at any cost, until clarity in the mind of the consumer results in personnel changes in faux leadership.
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Ford did stop selling Crown Victoria’s to police departments that were suing them over the gas tank placement in the Crown Vic. You wouldn’t want to sell someone something that they considered defective, would you? (Near as I can figure, it’s not a case like the Pinto where Ford saved about $5 by not putting a positive stop between the rear axle and the tank, but just that anywhere you put the tank, there’s a possible angle of impact that might crush it.)
The police departments really didn’t like that. I think nearly all of them admitted the car wasn’t defective and pulled out of the suit rather than stop buying the only rear-wheel drive frame-built sedan still in production in North America. As I understand it, police like cars with frames because they hold up better than unibodies in heavy use, and they want rear-wheel drive because someone well-trained in getting the most out of it can skid it around high-speed turns tighter than any front wheel drive can duplicate. But nowadays, that means their choices are the Crown Vic or a truck. Now, I love the way my 4WD pickup handles on ice and snow, but I’d never try to chase down a speeder with it on dry pavement…
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Uh, no. I just want the .gov to act like the constitution says what it says.
Oh, so you mean no prohibition on state and local governments taking land as they see fit? 🙂
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:44 pm
How ya figure that? Fifth amendment + 14th amendment = nopers.
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:52 pm
I’d say the text of the 5th itself says nopers, but the 14th removes all doubt. “Nor shall…” and “shall not…” don’t specify who can’t do the proscribed action, rather that the action is a no-no. The first ammendment, however, would require the 14th to apply to the states. (It starts with “Congress shall make no law”)
Gosh, if my history professors didn’t teach me better, I might even think those founder guys were pretty clever. 🙂
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Relevant text of the fifth amendment: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
All that says is that private property cannot be taken for public use unless just compensation is given. What it does not say is that any other kind of taking is prohibited. You might like to read that in there, but the text simply doesn’t say that. It does not say “private property may ONLY be taken for public use, and then ONLY if just compensation is given.” That’s how you’re reading it, but that ain’t what it says.
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Just to expound on that a bit further, from a strict textual perspective, the federal government cannot take private property for non-public use because there’s no explicit provision allowing it to do so. But I don’t think that “lack of power” is incorporated to the states by the fourteenth amendment. Thus, the 14th’s requirement of just compensation for public-use takings is incorporated, but from a strict textualist perspective, that’s all it does. Other takings are matters for the states and, respectively, the people.
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Not to those who are serious about serious about having the government “act like the constitution says what it says.” It’s not as though the Fourteenth Amendment says “the Fifth Amendment is hereby incorporated against the states.”
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Ah, but there is. Article IV, Section 3 expressly empowers Congress “to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.” That’s pretty broad.
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:42 pm
X:
Read that way, there’s nothing wrong with the conclusion of Kelo, just the logic they used to get there.
September 22nd, 2006 at 6:02 pm
TGirsch, depending on which of the comments you’re referring to (no incorporation vs. no public use requirement) I don’t necessarily disagree. However, the logic matters. If, rather than affirming an unconstitutional taking on the theory that it complies with the Fifth Amendment, the Supremes had instead ruled that the Fifth Amendment simply does not apply, that would have aggrieved homeowners in a better position to raise similar challenges under similarly-worded state constitutional provisions, which clearly do apply. Technically, there’s nothing to stop a state court from ruling that same friggin’ phrase means one thing when written in the U.S. Constitution and something else when written in its own, but let’s face it, rulings like that make them look like chumps.
By analogy, suppose that the Dems end up with control of both houses this fall, and the House votes to impeach President Bush for the high crime and misdemeanor of “being a wanker.” President Bush challenges his impeachment in federal court, arguing that “being a wanker” does not constitute a high crime or misdemeanor, and that he therefore cannot be impeached on that basis. The case makes it all the way up to the Supreme Court, which does one of the following:
Strikes down the impeachment, on the theory that being a wanker is not a high crime or misdemeanor.
Upholds the impeachment, on the theory that being a wanker does indeed constitute a high crime or misdemeanor.
Effectively abstains from ruling on the issue at all, on the theory that it’s up to Congress, not the courts, to decide what is or isn’t a high crime and misdemeanor.
In a sense, #2 and #3 are equivalent, but in a very real sense, they’re not. Both have the court saying “we won’t stop you from doing this,” but #2 tells Congress they got the issue right, while #3 tells them “you’re on your own.” And the difference is not purely academic; a ruling along the lines of #3 would leave it up to Congressmen to explain their ridiculous decision to voters, while #2 would give cover to every Congress to impeach every future President who happens to be a member of the opposite party.
September 22nd, 2006 at 7:35 pm
tgirsch, it is really very simple. If the state (any level) is not expressly permitted to do a thing, it is prohibited. If a citizen is not expressly forbidden to do a thing it is permitted.
All other semantical arguments are nonsense.
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:25 pm
Actually, no, straightarrow, it’s not that simple. If the federal government is not expressly permitted to do something, it’s prohibited by the federal Constitution. States can do what they want, unless it’s expressly prohibited. If states had to depend on the federal Constitution for their powers, they’d scarcely have the power to do anything at all.
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:39 am
Xrlq, I grant you are partially correct. States may not limit a citizen’s guaranteed right according to the fourteenth amendment. Though, they often do, it is illegal.
I was incorrect in stating “any level” of government may not do a thing unless expressly permitted, there are some powers that adhere to state and local authority, however, even they are prohibited from rescinding, restricting, or abolishing citizen rights, especially where such action is expressly forbidden in the federal constitution.
Were it not so every little group could totally enslave any other smaller group through the artifice of local powers. Might be a good idea, come to think of it, my windows need washed and I have more votes in my house than any two within a five mile radius, I could just force some of them to do it. Now, doesn’t that sound ridiculous? But that is the kind of thing that would evolve if we accepted majority rule with no guarantees that were enforceable against all would be abusers. In this case, our schizophrenia is a good thing, in that we do not accept such at every level. When do you think we might learn that a principle to be true must hold through all strata?
We all know that this is violated on a daily basis. The Kelo v. New London decision is a perfect example of illegal taking. It is not legal just because the USSC says it is. And by the way, they are not the only arbiters of constitutionality.They have been wrong before and they are wrong now. I don’t know how long it will take, but this is a decision that will be reversed, unless of course the nation perishes first.
The violation of citizen rights is still not allowed, the certainty of raw naked force and the custom of bowing to it perpetuate the practices. You may not be enjoined from voting by a city, state, or local bar. You may not be forced to quarter police in your home by your city, you may not be censored in your speech by the local mayor. And yes, that is the kind of thing we are talking about.