"Liberals" should rejoice because this helps to keep dirty businesses accountable.

"Conservatives" should rejoice because this will require "commie appeasing tree huggers" to have to prove their "hoax" in a court of law.

And then they can blame "activist judges."

Fox quoting WSJ? I'll wait to read the bill myself.

Atillathepun: "Liberals" should rejoice because this helps to keep dirty businesses accountable.

"Conservatives" should rejoice because this will require "commie appeasing tree huggers" to have to prove their "hoax" in a court of law.

And then they can blame "activist judges."

Even if it passed, I'd be amazed if anyone could get a case bsaed on this law within 100 yards of a courthouse.

I can see the daytime tv lawyer commercials now.

"Do you know someone that has suffered from global warming? Did you go outside and get a sunburn? Does the smog give you a cough? Are you batshiat crazy? Call the law offices of Dewey Cheatum and Howe to get what you deserve"

POAC: Fox quoting WSJ? I'll wait to read the bill myself.

That's pretty much like quoting themselves.


Well, it will be interesting to see just how these people will figure out how to sue the source of heat in our solar system, the Sun.

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.

So does this mean I can finally sue al gore for stressing me out over his global warming bullshiat?

Weaver95: So does this mean I can finally sue al gore for stressing me out over his global warming bullshiat?

THIS is actually an interesting idea.
Sue algore for fear mongering

Weaver95: So does this mean I can finally sue al gore for stressing me out over his global warming bullshiat?

In what sense is global warming bullshiat?

Or are you reserving the criticism solely for Mr. Gore-- who, by the way, is generally considered about as stressful as a glass of warm milk?

I'm looking forward to reading the decisions on Williams -v- Terra, State of California -v- Carbon Dioxide, and City of Boynton Beach -v- karenia brevis.

namatad: THIS is actually an interesting idea.
Sue algore for fear mongering

Hannity and Rush could write friend of the court briefs

log_jammin: Hannity and Rush could write friend of the courtwould wet their briefs

FTFY

Atillathepun: log_jammin: Hannity and Rush could write friend of the courtwould wet their briefspanties

FTFY

FT FTFY FY

Just so long as we can also sue when it proves false.

Sun spots.

Right, because adding another avenue for frivolous lawsuits is just what the trial lawyers economy needs.

Suin' for my sunburn!

It's interesting that this bill is only receiving the most tepid support from the Obama administration.

I know there are going to be people here who want to impale my head on a stick for saying this, but I think when the dust settles, people are going to find out the the differences between Bush and Obama mostly center on style.

the problem is that a defendant country could claim that lots of other countries are responsible too. this is ridiculous. oh and cows.

/don't require courts of law to seek damages

Ha! Fox quotes Washington Times? I'll wait till I hear it from a reputable Conservative, like Drudge, Limbaugh, Gingrich, or Coulter.

Presumably, that person would have to prove they haven't contributed to the problem at all, such as by using a car or farting. After all, do smokers get to sue other smokers for contributing to secondhand smoke?

Sue who for damages? God?

/drtfa

Weaver95: So does this mean I can finally sue al gore for stressing me out over his global warming bullshiat?

Please place me on your class action email list.

dbubb: It's interesting that this bill is only receiving the most tepid support from the Obama administration.

I know there are going to be people here who want to impale my head on a stick for saying this, but I think when the dust settles, people are going to find out the the differences between Bush and Obama mostly center on style.

I'm pretty sure not supporting retarded policies is more than a style difference. All I know is me and the Ozone Layer are gonna take Sol for all it's worth.

/solar radiation killed my father, and raped my mother

From the full Washington Times article:
"Self-proclaimed victims of global warming or those who "expect to suffer" from it - from beachfront property owners to asthmatics - for the first time would be able to sue the federal government or private businesses over greenhouse gas emissions under a little-noticed provision slipped into the House climate bill.
And goes on:
It would allow citizens to seek up to $75,000 in damages from the government each year, but would cap the total amount paid out each year at $1.5 million, committee staff said. It is unclear whether the provision would actually cap damages at $75,000 per person, because the U.S. law referenced does not establish payouts by the government.

So, cough-cough, wheeze-wheeze... I self proclaim that air pollution is bad for my asthma. Where's my check? Yeah, right.

This should end well. I'm sure the trial lawyers are ready to go if this somehow manages to get passed.

The really creepy part is how this provision of the climate bill was quietly slipped in and is now being accelerated through Waxman's committee. Waxman should have himself accelerated in front of a moving bus.

This country has enough lawsuits to deal with.
Don't Feed The Lawayers!

BTW... my first greenlit :-)

great, give anyone who is batshiat insane the perfect chance to sue, and the already slow legal system will come to a complete halt trying to get to every 'Global Warming' claim, not to mention the lawyers who will file lawsuits on behalf of "victims" who argue that their lawsuit falls under the umbrella of global warming, such as over population.

Hope you don't have a real need to sue, the statute of limitations or death my occur before you get your first day in court.

AntiNorm: Sue who for damages? God?

/drtfa

For creating a defective product ?

Obdicut: Weaver95: So does this mean I can finally sue al gore for stressing me out over his global warming bullshiat?

In what sense is global warming bullshiat?

Or are you reserving the criticism solely for Mr. Gore-- who, by the way, is generally considered about as stressful as a glass of warm milk?

Even the experts on his side of the argument have said that Gore and his movie were full of it. They've said he made matters worse because he gave inaccurate information. He did it in an attempt at profiteering with his carbon credit business.

1. Own a business that sells item X

2. Exclaim that the word will end unless people start using item X

3. Watch the lemmings go buy item X

4. Profit

How 'bout every entrepreneur who wanted to capitalize on clean energy only to have the patent bought out from under him by the burners? What's the arbitrary cap on solar plant output these days? 1% of what the burners can do?

How 'bout we strike the laws that ban us from accumulating enough free energy to compete with the unholy dipshiats who bought the best ideas with the cash we sent them so they could bury them?

Brubold: Even the experts on his side of the argument have said that Gore and his movie were full of it.

On the whole, no, not really (new window)

Aside from the hurricanes/global warming link, they think it's pretty much spot on (new window)

So congress has taken up reading? This is exactly how the novel "State of Fear" by the late Micheal Crichton started!

I thought art was supposed to imitate life, not the other way 'round.

Now that you mention it, it is kind of hot in here.

captainktainer: Brubold: Even the experts on his side of the argument have said that Gore and his movie were full of it.

On the whole, no, not really (new window)

Aside from the hurricanes/global warming link, they think it's pretty much spot on (new window)

What Brubold meant was Foxperts. They aren't experts, but they play one on tv.

Warning: Fox News, people.

POAC: Fox quoting WSJ? I'll wait to read the bill myself.

There is no bill...this is just more economic terrorism from the largest terrorist group in the world today, the Republican Party.

farking win.

About time, I should be able to sue anyone for any god damn thing.

That's farking retarded. This is (maybe) a global problem. We shouldn't let farking' Waxman slip in some legislation so we can put it to corporate America.




Go global warming! Help curb humanity.

AntiNorm: Sue who for damages? God?

If blacks can sue the KKK for damages, then Americans should be able to sue the Republican party for the same.
It really is their fault.

Coelacanth: If blacks can sue the KKK for damages, then Americans should be able to sue the Republican party for the same.
It really is their fault.


The GOP is bankrupt, at least morally.

this is just red meat thrown out for retarded Fox News viewers to get pissed off about

"Can you believe, loyal morons viewers, what those GODless liberals are up too this time"

Fox news is the source, eh. They have no creditability. At all.

Nothing to see here, move on.

Life imitating Harvey Birdman ... I never thought I'd live to see the day.

Can I sue someone for freezing my balls off in April? It snowed here a week ago. Fark.

Most of you are assuming that WT and Fox aren't exaggerating the provision in the bill, because you know...they never do that.
EFCA IS GONNA KILL THE SECRET BALLOT!
STIMULUS BILL IS GONNA ONLY USE ILLEGALS!!

Primary document:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090331/acesa_discussiondraft.pdf (648 page discussion draft)

from http://globalwarming.house.gov/mediacenter/pressreleases_2008?id=0106#main_cont e nt

For those that'd rather discuss the actual content and not the source.

With the primary document and the original Washington Times article we find


The measure sets grounds for anyone "who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part," to government inaction to file a "citizen suit." The term "harm" is broadly defined as "any effect of air pollution (including climate change), currently occurring or at risk of occurring."

Know why those are in quotes? It's because they are quotes. See page 528 of the draft released by the Committee, and stop shooting yourselves in the feet by stupidly aiming for a messenger who's actually correct.

namatad:
Sue algore for fear mongering

Erm, Al Gore is correct (facts don't change even if you don't like the person informing you about them). Also, I the GOP coffers would be bankrupt in less than 12 hours if we were able to sue for fear mongering.

Report looks substantially correct. Government agency is the defendant, citizens are plaintiffs, total payout is capped per year, amount per suit is capped, awards used either for compensation for impact suffered or for mitigation projects recommended by plaintiff, claims may be combined, and 'harm' includes not only effects that are currently occurring but also are 'at risk of occurring' as well as incremental exacerbation thereof. Harm mus tbe suffered or 'reasonably expects to suffer' harm based on action of administrator.

AntiNorm: Sue who for damages? God?

/drtfa

How about the dumb farkers that kept insisting it isn't real to protect their profits?

/tobacco 'scientists' had to go somewhere

Didn't realize a draft that was brought forward 2 weeks ago means that's exactly what is going to be signed into law, according to WT and Fox it is. If only they covered other stupid shiat that Congress did, like Eric Cantor's "make English national language" bill or his "Bob Hope Day" bill.
I forgot, this was brought forward by a Democrat, so it's evil.