Security doesn't flow from depositions, suits

"Litigation as a Hazardous Substance" by: Hugh Hewitt
This Washington Times op-ed by Representatives Peter King and Charlie Dent is a must read.

"King and Dent begin their argument by citing the massive amount of litigation triggered by the Endangered Species Act, a subject I wrote about this past weekend.

"Congress cannot continue to license plaintiffs' lawyers to cripple American business with lawsuits or to burden the government with endless complaints which must be answered and which drain the agencies of energy and time..."

HERE ARE EXCERTS:

"When the environmental activist lawyers at Greenpeace or similar environmental groups dislike a decision made by wildlife biologists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding an imperiled species, they do what lawyers do best - they file a lawsuit against the agency. The Endangered Species Act contains a provision explicitly permitting these lawsuits.

"As a result, biologists then divert their attention away from protecting species to responding to the lawsuit and reacting to any judicial decisions. In 2002, this brought the Fish and Wildlife Service to a standstill.

"Referencing the "large amount of litigation" faced by the agency, officials stated: "Complying with these orders and settlement agreements will consume nearly all or all of our listing budget for [fiscal] 2002."

" Despite the well-reported and troubling results these lawsuits have caused at the agency, the environmental lobby and House Democratic leaders actually want to authorize similar lawsuits against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) - the agency charged with the essential task of ensuring the security of our citizens against terrorist attacks.

"This past summer, the House Committee on Homeland Security considered the Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act of 2009, in which the Democratic majority included a provision to permit anyperson or group - even one who has not been harmed in any way - to sue an owner of a chemical plant or the Department of Homeland Security if he or she believes that the facility may not be in full compliance with chemical plant security regulations.

"Such a provision would mark the first time that DHS would be subject to civil suits by uninjured parties. Such a move is unnecessary, risky and, in fact, dangerous.

"When it comes to securing chemical facilities from terrorist attack, millions of human lives are at risk. We cannot afford to have DHS - established as a direct result of terrorists murdering nearly 3,000 innocent Americans - struggling in the same flood of litigation as the Fish and Wildlife Service. We certainly cannot afford to have DHS' work of protecting the American people come to a near halt, as had happened with the wildlife protection...

Read the rest and consider how litigation over supposedly fine points of legislation poses some of the greatest risks to every element of American liberty, prosperity and security:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/04/litigation-as-a-hazardous-substance/