No such right exists, or has ever existed.
Perhaps the biggest question at stake, observers say, is whether judges can—and should—set climate policy. The plaintiffs think so, calling the courts their “last resort,”
This is a key statement. And this is what liberals use the courts for. They use the courts to compel a certain policy.
Whatever we do about global warming policy, is just that, a policy decision, a legislative decision, and parts can be executive decisions from a president. But there’s no legal violation, no violation of constitutional rights, so there’s no reason for courts to be involved here.
Or I should say, no place for the courts expect for when liberal judges stick their nose into this. In this case, a judge decided there is indeed a role for the courts. So we will have a show trial over global warming in a court of law.
Among other things, what a waste of time and judicial resources to have a court case on global warming.