[ModelBreaker]

I disagree with the article completely. Opening the doors of the court to anyone who doesn't like a law tends to make the Courts into superlegislatures--speaking about policy rather than a real dispute.

In the olden days, parties had to have standing to assert a claim and there had to be a real case-or-controversy before courts would wade in. The greenies and many other leftist groups didn't like that because it forced the courts to consider actual disputes with real issues before it rather than listening to policy advocates posing as litigants. It tends to make bad law and to get the courts thinking about themselves as little dictators. They are no longer deciding an actual dispute, they are setting policy.

Letting every tom dick and harry into court has been a key element in the leftist's assault on the constitution.

Another problem with letting anyone sue is that their lawyers get paid for 'acting in the public good' if they prevail. So what that creates is a cadre of leftist lawyers making up lawsuits 'in the public good.' They make a good living that way. Having this group out there with no need to have a real job is not a good thing.

[sergeantdave]

Pure BS.

What this suit is about is legal standing. If no person has suffered harm, why should you be allowed to sue? These eco-fascists come in from out of state and sue a company under environmental laws because some harm "might" occur. This is about junk science and the UN's precautionary principle. It's about "feelings."

The precautionary principle says that something must not be done because someone or something might be harmed in the future. No proof, no science is needed. Just "feelings" will do. These citizen suits are nothing more than a Marxist-luddite scheme to stop free enterprise.

If harm is done, a person still may take an action in court. The Michigan court should rule in favor of Cleveland Cliffs.

And these eco-fascists can go back west and sniff spotted owl farts.

[RJL]

"the attorney general or any person" can sue the state for failing to enforce environmental laws.

Who is “any person”, a hate America firster from the UN or France? A despot like Saddam Hussein who is sitting on the second largest known oil reserves in the world, who could afford an army of attorneys to keep the US and its courts tied up for a century?

No thanks.

[ClintonBeGone]

How about they just declare the entire act an unconstitutional law that interfers with a person or company's private property rights. However, I'm sure whichever anti-capitalist hysterical enviromental wacko group which put out this notice wants nothing to do with that type of claim.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[editor-surveyor]

"Without citizen consent, the government doesn't exist."

And right now, I'm inclined to withdraw my consent!