Skip to comments.
Judge: Seattle Kids Can Move Ahead with Climate Rights Case
cnsnews.com ^
| 12/22/16
| PHUONG LE
Posted on 12/22/2016 9:02:28 AM PST by ColdOne
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
1
posted on
12/22/2016 9:02:28 AM PST
by
ColdOne
To: ColdOne
One more melon full of mush judge.
This is a farce!
2
posted on
12/22/2016 9:04:26 AM PST
by
DoughtyOne
(jcon40, "Are we be coming into the age of Sanity?")
To: ColdOne
They should first have to prove Global Warming is real, even before they can show how it has hurt them.
3
posted on
12/22/2016 9:05:04 AM PST
by
Ingtar
(.)
To: ColdOne
I see profound issues involving separation of powers here. Essentially the Judge is turning a jury into a super legislature, dictating questions of public policy that are constitutionally left to the legislature.
To: ColdOne
Snowflakes want to be legally protected from the future ...
5
posted on
12/22/2016 9:06:20 AM PST
by
PIF
(They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
To: Ingtar
6
posted on
12/22/2016 9:06:22 AM PST
by
illiac
(If we don't change directions soon, we'll get where we're going)
To: ColdOne
"The petitioners, between 12 and 16 years old, had asked the judge last month to find the state Department of Ecology in contempt for failing to adequately protect them and future generations from global warming."
To find them "in contempt" of, or for, exactly what? I thought law was based on precise language and specific rules and obligations. How can something so nebulous be the grounds of a lawsuit?
To: ColdOne
You cannot protect the climate from change... this judge is a buffoon.
The climate has changed since the earth was formed and will continue to change until it is a burnt out husk sitting inside the dying sun.
To: DoughtyOne
It may be a Farce, I believe it is, but it is also an Opportunity to Finish Off the Global Warming Religious zealots by forcing them IN COURT UNDER THREAT OF PERJURY and PRISON, not to mention the FRAUD they have Perpetrated, to Actually Prove their Case, in which we all know they Can NOT DO.
9
posted on
12/22/2016 9:12:06 AM PST
by
eyeamok
(destruction of government records.)
To: ColdOne
Trump needs to get rid of these so called “judges” like this. Retards should not be “judges”.
10
posted on
12/22/2016 9:12:18 AM PST
by
FlingWingFlyer
(As long as tyranny exists, the Constitution and Bill of Right will never be "outdated" or "obsolete")
To: Steve_Seattle
Generally when one seeks injunctive relief they need demonstrate the harm. Is their position it is warmer? Well warmer means more areas of the planet can sustain humans through agriculture. This is what happens when the ABCs are forgotten in the schools and it becomes common fare to indoctrinate.
Find a blackboard, send them to it and make them write 500 times: I am too uninformed to render policy decisions.
11
posted on
12/22/2016 9:12:49 AM PST
by
Mouton
(The insurrection laws maintain the status quo now.)
To: ColdOne
There is no global warming. These children are being manipulated by the climate lie to make you pay money and give up your stuff. The great news is that TRUMP IS HERE!!
12
posted on
12/22/2016 9:13:19 AM PST
by
WENDLE
(Merry CHRISTx.)
To: FlingWingFlyer
“Trump needs to get rid of these so called judges like this.”
He’s a county judge and Trump would have no authority to do so. However, the voters of King County could remove him in the next election. Given the political leanings of King County, I’m not holding my breath in anticipation of that happening.
To: ColdOne
This type of crap has been orchestrated by Obama’s EPA. Have environmental wackos sue, then a judge rules in favor and “forces” the government to make the changes.
To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Good for these kids. I applaud their efforts at activism to present their case before a judge. I also applaud their desire to learn what failure means as this case is going to be thrown out for its merits.
On a positive note, they can get a participation award that they can hang up in their bedrooms next to the picture of Justin Beiber.
15
posted on
12/22/2016 9:20:59 AM PST
by
EQAndyBuzz
(Too. Much. Winning.)
To: ColdOne
Judge is worse than a snowflake.
16
posted on
12/22/2016 9:25:34 AM PST
by
mulligan
(I)
To: ColdOne
They are under 18. This is not a rational decision.
Now, if their parents or guardians want to sue on their behalf, that’s fine.
17
posted on
12/22/2016 9:28:17 AM PST
by
Mr. Douglas
(Today is your life. What are you going to do with it?)
To: ColdOne
I hope it's a loser pays deal, and the kids lose.
18
posted on
12/22/2016 9:28:59 AM PST
by
BitWielder1
(I'd rather have Unequal Wealth than Equal Poverty.)
To: ColdOne
The good news is that AGW will have to make its case in court.
19
posted on
12/22/2016 9:29:50 AM PST
by
Mr. Douglas
(Today is your life. What are you going to do with it?)
To: Mouton
"Generally when one seeks injunctive relief they need demonstrate the harm."
Well, won't they just rattle off a bunch of dire predictions about the effects of global warming as "proof" of the harm they've suffered or will suffer?
It seems that this opens up a can of worms. For example, someone could sue the government for not doing enough to fight terrorism, because terrorist acts still happen. Or, one could say that officials haven't done enough to make cars safe, or to prevent gun violence, or to cure cancer. These are all threats about which one could always do "more."
I guess my point is that a lawsuit based on hypotheticals - hypothetical damage and hypothetical solutions - is legal nihilism. This takes judicial activism one step closer to the abyss.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson