Posted on 01/17/2020 2:20:53 PM PST by Kaslin
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did no favors for the climate alarmism movement this afternoon, after the panel of judges in San Francisco threw out a lawsuit against the government based on climate change.
The suit was filed in 2015 by a group of young climate alarmists, insisting that the government is solely responsible for creating climate change via cooperating with the fossil fuel industry. The suit claims that the government turned a blind eye to the potential for damage via carbon emissions. Lawyers serving both Presidents Obama and Trump asserted that the government is not at fault because a livable climate is not guaranteed in the Constitution.
Circuit court judges Mary H. Murguia and Andrew D. Hurwitz and District Judge Josephine L. Staton heard the case. In a rare moment of constitutional textualism by the Ninth Circuit, the trio of Obama nominees affirmed in a 2-1 vote that it was not the duty of the court to craft climate change policy, or to tell the legislative branch how to go about making laws.
“The plaintiffs claim that the government has violated their constitutional rights, including a claimed right under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to a ‘climate system capable of sustaining human life.’ The central issue before us is whether, even assuming such a broad constitutional right exists, an Article III court can provide the plaintiffs the redress they seek—an order requiring the government to develop a plan to ‘phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2.’ Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power. Rather, the plaintiffs’ impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government,” Judge Hurwitz wrote in the majority opinion.
Dissenting in the decision is District Judge Josephine L. Staton, who claims that this case could be in the scope of the judiciary:
“My colleagues throw up their hands, concluding that this case presents nothing fit for the Judiciary. Plaintiffs bring suit to enforce the most basic structural principle embedded in our system of ordered liberty: that the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction. So viewed, plaintiffs’ claims adhere to a judicially administrable standard. And considering plaintiffs seek no less than to forestall the Nation’s demise, even a partial and temporary reprieve would constitute meaningful redress. Such relief, much like the desegregation orders and statewide prison injunctions the Supreme Court has sanctioned, would vindicate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights without exceeding the Judiciary’s province,” Staton wrote.
The Ninth Circuit correctly decided this case; indeed, it is not the role of the judiciary to legislate or to instruct the legislative branch how to do so. Ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in this case would have set a dangerous precedent, and today is a good day for the adherence to one of our most fundamental principles: separation of powers.
A 3 judge panel from the 9th circuit?! Something fishy. Will they file for a full panel? Can they? Somebody is getting a call from grrrrrrreta.
Good. This was probably being pushed along by the teachers anyway. Most students aren’t going to be like Greta the Zombie.
This lunatic "Judge" should be nowhere near our Judiciary system
"When the seas envelop our coastal cities, fires and droughts haunt our interiors, and storms ravage everything between, those remaining will ask: Why did so many do so little?"
So the lawyers threw in the towel on (1) the existence and extent of climate change, (2) the government's responsibility for climate change, (3) man's effect on any climate change, and (4) the deleterious effects of climate change as opposed to the benefits of climate change.
I would have preferred a court proceeding to establish the facts of the case. Climate advocates don't like to go head to head with climate change deniers. The facts aren't on their side.
1. Climate change exists. It’s anthropogenic climate change which does not.
The opposite of climate change would be climate stagnation. I do not believe that there has ever been climate stagnation.
The 9th Circus decided correctly, but “reluctantly”. Must be looking warily over their shoulders at Trump...
What’s scary is that it wasn’t a unanimous decision.
I shouldn’t be as relieved as I am about this.
Weather happens
The key to my point is establishing the “extent” of climate change. Once one puts climate change on an historic timeline, an alarmist would have to be able to demonstrate that climate change has shown an acceleration since the beginning of the human activity which is construed to “cause” it. Since the current climate change cycle, the warming demonstrated by glacial changes began in the late 1800’s, increased climate change does not correlate with increased atmospheric CO2.
The plaintiffs may appeal for an en banc decision by the entire court.
This isn’t even close to presenting a justiciable claim. Yet, two of the clowns of the Ninth circus only “reluctantly” agreed and the third clown would have allowed the lawsuit.
Don't worry, that'll be the next thing for our $Trillion$. I maintain we will just shift to the next link in the chain to tyranny: Glowbull Ice Age -> Glowbull Warming -> Climate Change -> Climate Sameness. If we have a one-world government at the end of that series, all will be good.
This movement should sue the government for allowing schools to fill their empty noggins with mush.
Has someone checked on Greta, is she okay?
all three are Obama appointees.
No matter. In every group in history and society, there are just stupid members..
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.