Analysis: Appeals Court ruling only a minor set-back for DM&E opponents

Did Schieffer, himself, rewrite railroad law with this project in mind? Many is South Dakota believe that is was Schieffer, a lawyer, who worked for then Senator Larry Pressler of South Dakota,  who was the one that actually reworked the railroad law that became the ICC Termination Act of 1995. Pressler was Senator until he lost to Tim Johnson in an upset in 1996. Pressler, I beleive, was chair of the Transportation Committee that oversaw the rewriting of rail law as part of Newt Gingrich’s plan to have a more business friendly gov’t. Schieffer worked for Pressler until some time in the early nineties, and may or may have not done consulting for him until 1996 when he was a railroad lawyer/consultant. Many of us who followed the procedures of the EIS, believe many aspects of the ICC Act violate NEPA law, in that it puts a premium on economic benefit over any environmental harms. In the EIS, about the only way to win a lawsuit is to show procedures weren’t followed; it doesn’t really allow you to say the best course wasn’t followed if the gov’t can show they looked at it. The ICC Termination Act of 1995 needs to be revisited.

Did Schieffer, himself, rewrite railroad law with this project in mind? Many is South Dakota believe that is was Schieffer, a lawyer, who worked for then Senator Larry Pressler of South Dakota,  who was the one that actually reworked the railroad law that became the ICC Termination Act of 1995. Pressler was Senator until he lost to Tim Johnson in an upset in 1996. Pressler, I beleive, was chair of the Transportation Committee that oversaw the rewriting of rail law as part of Newt Gingrich's plan to have a more business friendly gov't. Schieffer worked for Pressler until some time in the early nineties, and may or may have not done consulting for him until 1996 when he was a railroad lawyer/consultant. Many of us who followed the procedures of the EIS, believe many aspects of the ICC Act violate NEPA law, in that it puts a premium on economic benefit over any environmental harms. In the EIS, about the only way to win a lawsuit is to show procedures weren't followed; it doesn't really allow you to say the best course wasn't followed if the gov't can show they looked at it. The ICC Termination Act of 1995 needs to be revisited.