This is the most california thing Ive ever heard.
> But they add that under the regulators’ proposal the charge could be applied retroactively for five years — which they call “an alarming precedent” — and could amount to a bill of more than $220 million for California consumers.
Edit: I just wanted to point out: As someone else mentioned in another thread on this article, there's an idea of "ex post facto" laws in the US constitution[1]. So considering this "an alarming precedent" when the authors of the constitution already knew of such a thing and prohibited it is a statement about our generation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...
Not really. The laws still need to be passed. I believe Deepwater Horizon was largely resolved with ex post facto legislation.
FWIW, the precedent distinguishing prohibited ex post facto laws from permitted retrospective laws was established by the Supreme Court when ink on the Constitution was practically still wet, in Calder v. Bull (1798).
I think there is an applicable quote about defending scoundrels that would apply here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Doe
An interesting side note is that many state courts have continued to strike down similar provisions, and some Federal courts have apparently also concluded that certain rules about sex offenders are "punitive" and so constitutionally invalid as outside of the Smith v. Doe rule. So this example is hard to summarize in a simple way, not least because many other courts have been trying to narrow this rule.
I prefer to call them collisions because "accident" implies nobody is at fault.
I've had those everywhere I've lived in the country.
The state has a property tax freeze on its hands that charges private country clubs pennies to the dollar on what should be their fair share.[1]
1. https://blog.simonsays.ai/a-good-walk-spoiled-with-malcolm-g...