Strassel claims that there is such an earmark created at the behest of ATLA, subtly providing an implied cause of action against chemical manufacturers in H.R. 1591, the soon-to-be-vetoed Iraq War supplemental funding bill. Indeed, the provision is difficult to find amidst the provisions for the milk income loss contract program and renewal grants for women's business centers. I suspect Strassel is referring to the anti-preemption provision in Section 1501(a) of the bill, effectively permitting lawsuits against chemical facilities that comply with Department of Homeland Security regulations without once mentioning the word "lawsuit." If there is a terrorist attack on a chemical facility, trial lawyers will have a deep pocket to blame.
You read it right; even if the plant COMPLIES with DHS regs, they're open to lawsuits brought by the Democrats' Best Friends, the
HT: Overlawyered
interesting blog
ReplyDeleteUmnnnh, thanks!
ReplyDeleteI note that you hail from the city in which "point-shooting" was invented and perfected.
AND you are in law-enforcement, as was the inventor of the technique.
Neat!