Gary is a high flying attorney focusing on ag interests, formerly an official in EPA.
He was at EPA in the beginning under Ruckleshaus, and now litigates matters for the citizenry and ag interests to challenge EPA overreach and excess.
Gary sends me this reminder–Sidley Austin is a Chicago Law firm doing quite well by Obama.
My experience with law firms in the area of environmental law is that they like EPA aggression and they benefit from EPA overreach.
My irritation with big law firms is they are part of the oligarchy that Hamberger points out has created a systematic due process violation against the citizenry on challenging agency actions, science and policy.
As Hambuger points out and I have pointed out–if the courts allow agency hegemony on interpreting the enabling statutes and do not demand proper peer review of the science, or judicial review of the science and policy making–game over.
Administrative Law as currently practiced, environmental law is disabled by an artifice–Chevron deference that eliminates challenges on basic things like science and economic research and claims that form the basis for regulatory actions.
You might note that big enviro law firms do not, have not pursued effective challenges of EPA science and policy making–and you might ask the question, if trial lawyers across the country are familiar with Daubert admissibility challenges to opinion testimony and science testimony are widely used and effective–how come the government is immunized and why don’t law firms beat up the courts for dereliction of their duty to provide a forum for a challenge to government action? Maybe because law firms like a leviathan that produces compliance and litigation annuities to lawyers representing industry and business.
As Gary Baise has pointed out to me–there is a DC revolving door from EPA and executive agency positions to big DC law firms. We should not ignore that glaring conflict.
For your convenience, the JS Archive on Daubert:
The JS archive on Chevron:
The pertinent posts are the top ones, some of the others pertain to Chevron litigation in Ecuador and Chevron business activities.