Trial of Kids Climate Change Lawsuit indefinitely postponed

From Legal Insurrection

Posted by William A. Jacobson Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 6:14pm

District Court reverses itself, grants the government an immediate “interlocutory” appeal to the 9th Circuit, putting the trial on hold indefinitely, in a case likely to end up in Supreme Court.

yearsproject

The so-called Kids Climate Change Lawsuit seeks to hold the U.S. government liable for climate change and to compel remedial action. Seriously.

It’s a ludicrous lawsuit that was supposed to go to trial in late October 2018, after surviving a motion to dismiss.

Here’s how the district court described the claims in refusing to dismiss the case:

Plaintiffs in this civil rights action are a group of young people between the ages of eight and nineteen (“youth plaintiffs”); Earth Guardians, an association of young environmental activists; and Dr. James Hansen, acting as guardian for future generations.2 Plaintiffs filed this action against defendants the United States, President Barack Obama, and numerous executive agencies. Plaintiffs allege defendants have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide (“CO;’) produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia.” First. Am. Comp. ¶1. Despite that knowledge, plaintiffs assert defendants, “[b ]y their exercise of sovereign authority over our country’ s atmosphere and fossil fuel resources, … permitted, encouraged, and otherwise enabled continued exploitation, production, and combustion of fossil fuels, … deliberately allow[ing] atmospheric C02 concentrations to escalate to levels unprecedented in human history[.]” Id ¶5. Although many different entities contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, plaintiffs aver defendants bear “a higher degree of responsibility than any other individual, entity, or country” for exposing plaintiffs to the dangers of climate change. Id. ¶7. Plaintiffs argue defendants’ actions violate their substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property, and that defendants have violated their obligation to hold certain natural resources in trust for the people and for future generations.

Plaintiffs assert there is a very short window in which defendants could act to phase out fossil fuel exploitation and avert environmental catastrophe. They seek (1) a declaration their constitutional and public trust rights have been violated and (2) an order enjoining defendants from violating those rights and directing defendants to develop a plan to reduce C02 emissions.

NBC News reported on October 15, 2018 on the pending trial:

A lawyer for a group of young Americans suing the federal government over climate change said a judge’s decision Monday to allow the suit to move forward should clear the way for a trial to begin on Oct. 29.

The suit, which was brought by 21 children and young adults, accuses federal officials and oil industry executives of violating their due process rights by knowing for decades that carbon pollution poisons the environment, but doing nothing about it.

“When the climate science is brought into the courtroom it will result in the judge finding that the government is committing constitutional violations,” said the lawyer for the kids, Phil Gregory.

In a statement, a Justice Department spokesman said the government is reviewing Monday’s decision from U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken in Eugene, Oregon.

Aiken also ruled that the suit could proceed without President Donald Trump specifically named in it — a move Gregory said the young people had already agreed to.

“The law is unclear on whether and to what extent a court can issue an order to a sitting president,” Gregory said, adding that the ruling still allows the group to sue department leaders within the Trump Administration.

“These agencies are actively infringing on constitutional rights and the judge can issue an order stopping them without including the president,” he said.

There were attempts by the government to halt the trial pending an interlocutory appeal. That means that the defendants would not have to wait for a final judgment at trial to appeal, but could appeal the judge’s rulings before trial. Litigants need permission for an interlocutory appeal (there are exceptions, not relevant here).

As Chris Geidner at Buzzfeed described on November 2, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to address the issue in this procedural posture, but sent signals that the trial court should grant the interlocutory appeal and the 9th Circuit should consider the case:

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a Trump administration request to prevent a trial in a high-profile lawsuit in which a group of young people are trying to force the federal government to take broad action on climate change, claiming it hasn’t done enough to ensure their right to a safe and clean environment.

The high court, however, strongly suggested that further questions should be resolved by the appeals courts before the case goes to trial.

The Justice Department had asked the Supreme Court in late October to order a halt to the trial, which had been scheduled to begin on Oct. 29. The court denied that request — but it did so “because adequate relief may be available in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.”

In a three-page, unsigned order, the Supreme Court suggested that an immediate appeal of the district court’s ruling on key legal questions is likely appropriate before any trial begins.

For now, though, the temporary stay on the trial, which had been issued by Chief Justice John Roberts while the court considered the Trump administration’s request, has been lifted, with justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch stating that they would have granted the request….

In Friday night’s order from the Supreme Court, justices strongly questioned the decision not to allow an immediate appeal, noting its earlier language from the July order that the claims in the case present “substantial grounds for difference of opinion,” and pointing out that the standard under which a judge can allow for interlocutory appeal is when an order addresses “a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion” and where an immediate appeal could shorten the length of the litigation.

The Judge in the case has just reversed herself, in light of the Supreme Court comments, and has granted an interlocutory appeal. The full order (pdf.) is embedded below (h/t Chris Geidner).

Read the full story here:

HT/Vince

Advertisements

87 thoughts on “Trial of Kids Climate Change Lawsuit indefinitely postponed

    • Vukcevic

      Grow Up? No, their minds have been warped and indoctinated by a constant stream of alarmist predictions from teachers, green movements, etc). Thus they truly believe in all the doctrine.

      • It will all be over by then China has already passed thru it’s supposed electrical power generation and emission ceiling last month. Every major country will have failed there 2020 emission pledges and the French and German governments have the far right within striking distance at any future poll and hang by a thread.

        The emission control game is dead and buried it really is only the greens that haven’t given it the last rites.

        • It isnt dead in Canada. The madhatter PM Justin Trudeau is hell bent on instituting $ 5 billion carbon taxes starting January 1, 2019

        • First, Justin Trudeau has to solve the problem of keeping Canadian highways electromobilically snow-free and ice-free in winter.

          (Coquihalla Highway!)

          and how he is switching logistics on Canadian highways to electromobility.

          and: when can all canadian working people reach their workplace electromobile.

    • … an immediate appeal could shorten the length of the litigation.

      This greatly decreases the possibility that the children will be collecting pensions by the time the case is over.

      There is the principle of judicial economy in which the courts attempt to minimize the duplication of effort. That will come as a surprise to many people.

  1. For those not versed in the US legal system can someone please explain in simple terms what the hell that all means !

    • Peter, I have a post tracking this legal process. Short answer: As of Friday, Oregon District Court Judge Aiken has given into the Supreme Court suggestion and defendant’s request that a stay for interlocutory appeal be accepted by the lower court. This means that all trial activity at the District (lower) Court level stops while the higher Court of Appeals considers whether the case belongs in a court of law. Since it is the liberal Ninth Court of Appeals looking at this, the outcome is unpredictable. In any case the highest court (Supreme) has given notice they are watching.

      https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/11/24/kids-climate-lawsuit-update-nov-24/

      • Thank you, Ron

        I also wonder if the Supremes are wondering if the plaintiffs “ have standing”, regardless of the merits they assert. Thinking of recent case in California.

        Gums…

        • Thanks Ron, that makes it a lot clearer where this is heading.

          IMO the lefty 9th will not be in a hurry to see this get to SCOTUS with the present set of judges. They will leave it in abeyance for “brighter” times under a different president.

          This shameless manipulation of children should have been snubbed out before it got started. The left have no shame any more. Ends justifies the means, whatever it costs.

      • Ron – many thanks. Assuming your interpretation is correct, it was more informative than the entire article by Jacobson.
        I have a degree in physics – not jurisprudence. While I can read the Constitution, what he wrote was totally in a foreign language.
        It’s very rare that I get irritated at an article submitted here.

  2. Plaintiffs in this civil rights action are a group of young people between the ages of eight and nineteen (“youth plaintiffs”); Earth Guardians, an association of young environmental activists; and Dr. James Hansen, acting as guardian for future generations. Plaintiffs filed this action against defendants the United States, President Barack Obama, and numerous executive agencies.

    The kids are just a prop to hide the “grownups” who are responsible for producing this PR stunt.

      • Exploitation of children who have been lied to has often resulted in death by public execution…

        Waco…

        While the comment may seem to be “oh so wrong” I think the world would be a less confused and retarded place if Hansen had been dropped as a baby. The fact that he’s willing to put his name there is proof of psychopathy.

        • I am not a James Hansen fan. But there are many ways you can express that you don’t share his point of view. To say “Hansen needs to be hung, drawn and quartered” is far below the quality of comments that might be expected at this site. I persist: a comment like this has to be deleted. It brings down WUWT.

          • The comment was clearly hyperbole. Not meant to be taken literally. As tempting as it might sound. Boiling in oil on the other hand …

          • But the Climate Change advertisement featuring schoolchildren and office workers being murdered by having their heads blown off with explosives was just fine by yours and the Green Blobs standards.
            By the way, the leftwing fascists at Google have removed those ads due to “copywriter infringement”

          • Well, his boiling oceans “hypothesis”, or stream of calculator-dodging conscience, now disappeared from the internet, could actually be the most wrong calculation (if the clown had ever done it) in the entire history of science.

            Yep, almost certainly on his head.

      • In this day and age when kids can’t be spanked for really bad behavior without serious legal consequences, the adults involved in this fiasco certainly deserve that and more.

    • Hanged, not hung. A grammatical comment, not advocating any particular punishement for child abuse of this kind. Eight year-olds are usually deemed to young to testify.

    • Is this the same James Hanson that claimed in 1975 that increasing co2 levels would cause an ice age?

      • James Hansen was one of the first computer climate modellers that in 1988 predicted warming scenarios. Because he actually published 2 papers in 1981 on CO2 forcing and went to Congress twice to testify in 1987 and again in 1988 in favour of global warning you may accurately say that he James Hansen is the father of computer climate modelling . He also was the Director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, a division of NASA, for 32 years. During that time he turned that government agency into an agency for promoting that mankind is mainly responsible for global warming caused by CO2 increase in the atmosphere. However he is the father of a scientific discipline that started with a scam and has had to tell one lie after another just to keep the scam going. Billions have been wasted on this scam and billions more will be wasted before the scam ends.

        The only consolation we skeptics have is that each one of us is contributing the hastening of that end. I ask everyone I meet “Have you seen global warming yet? I have been looking for it for 30 years and cant seem to find it. Do you know where it is? If they mention something like the Arctic or Greenland I give them statistics that I have learned in 6 months of studying this for 8 hours a day.
        TELL EVERYONE YOU MEET THAT IT IS A SCAM AND WHY.
        1 WUWT contributer said, this scam in comparison makes Bernie Madoff look like a petty thief. Bernie Madoff in the end caused losses 0f ~$7 billion to his investors. As least they had a choice to invest or not. The world’s poor DO NOT have a choice. They are paying for James Hansen and others’ scam every day so that the end result might be $7 trillion down the drain before it is all over.

        Now for some comments about James Hansen

        It boggles the mind how truly deranged this man is. He is completely unstuck mentally and a bonafide nut case, devoid of any common sense or rational thought. To think he was the director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies(GISS) a division of NASA for a large % of time of the 32 years that he worked there. Before he retired in 2013, he turned that agency into an agency of global warming. He was arrested 5 times for protesting illegally for green causes.

        Some of his predictions and some statements in his own words, and hallmarks of his life are as follows:
        1) In 1986 he predicted that the earth temperature would be 1.1C higher within 20 years and then by
        2) 1988 he predicted that the Hudson River would overflow because of rising sea level caused by CO2 and New York would be underwater by 2008.
        3) He had also said that the Arctic would lose all of its ice by 2000.
        4) In 1999 he said that the earth had cooled and that the US hadn’t warmed in 50 years
        5) In December 2005, Hansen argued that the earth will become “a different planet” without U.S. leadership in cutting global greenhouse gas emissions.
        6) He also said that global warming of 2C above preindustrial times (~ 1850) would be dangerous and that mankind would be unable to adapt.
        7) In 2008 he coauthored a paper that said that unless mankind limited the CO2 to 350ppm that we would have not have the same planet that we grew up with. Well 10 years later we are at 410ppm and the planet looks the same to me.
        8) Also in 2008 Hansen predicted that by 2018, all Arctic ice would be gone.
        9) in 2009 Hansen called coal companies criminal enterprises and said that Obama had 4 years left to save the planet.
        10) In 2012 Hansen accused skeptics of crimes against humanity and nature.
        11) Hansen is involved with a 2015 lawsuit involving 21 kids that argues that their constitutional rights were interfered with by CO2
        12) He then said in march 2016 that the seas could rise several metres in 50 to 150 years and swamp coastal cities .
        13) In 2017 he has admitted that CAGW does not happen with burning fossil fuels.
        “One flaw in my book Storms of My Grandchildren is my inference you can get runaway climate change on a relatively short timescale. ”
        “Do you think that’s possible on a many-millions-of-years timescale?
        It can’t be done with fossil-fuel burning.”
        14) Then he said “But if you’re really talking about four or five degrees, that means the tropics and the subtropics are going to be practically uninhabitable.”

        He doesnt seem to know that their average temperature is 28C.
        15) But then he said that climate change was running a $535 trillion debt
        16) He has been quoted many times that equates climate change to all sorts of extreme weather events. No database in the world shows any more than there ever were.
        17) Hansen has published way over 100 fraudulent climate studies with almost all of them using results from computer climate models that are woefully inadequate and that have never been validated except by the human modeler.
        18) In 2018 he made this quote in a study “The average citizen in developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, has a debt of over $100,000 to remove their country’s contribution to climate change via fossil fuel burning.”
        19) In 2018 he has concocted a lawsuit against the US government over climate change usings kids as the plaintiffs.

        Obviously the man just doesnt know when to shut up.

        • We’re a more humane society now. Unlimited supplies of duct tape, a straightjacket and a padded cell – and let the vile POS keep his innards is what I say.

        • “Plaintiffs argue defendants’ actions violate their substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property, and that defendants have violated their obligation to hold certain natural resources in trust for the people and for future generations.”

          Generality non specific “resources in trust….” this wouldn’t include fossil fuels would it?

          I get the feeling that this nonsense all boils down confusion between peak oil, population growth and resource depletion and a recognition that once oil is depleted you cant have anything else either. Oil is portable there is no replacement but no one wants to admit this is true but everything politicians do to avoid this fact has the effect of consuming more of our finite resources, barking mad.

  3. At the very least the plaintiffs and their guardians should stop making the use of all goods and services that make use of fossil fuels. If the use of fossil fuels hurts the environment then their use of fossil fuels knowingly hurts the environment and they are as culpable as the fossil fuel companies and the government. After all it is their money that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business. So in this case the plaintiffs should also be named as defendants as should all those who make use of goods and or services provided for by the use of fossil fuels. All judges who wear clothes and have eaten food transported by truck should be named in this legal action.

    • That’s immaterial to the fact that you have to *prove* that CO2 causes climate change first, and there’s no proof at all. Correlation isn’t causation AND there is negative correlation of causation in this circumstance. CO2 release increase FOLLOWS temperature increase, as it should since temperature is a direct biological catalyst of decay and increases in energy consumption.

      So the problem is, they have to provide *evidence* of a crime to continue.

      • Prjindigo

        So the problem is, they have to provide *evidence* of a crime to continue.

        I don’t think this is a criminal case.

      • This is not a criminal case but rather a civil case so all they need is a preponderance of the evidence what ever that really means regarding science. Obviously from their photo they have all benefited from the use of fossil fuels and are still making use of goods and services provided for by the use of fossil fuels. I doubt that they have damages attributed to climate change especially climate change caused by the use of fossil fuels. Extreme weather events are part of the current climate and are not caused by climate change. Weather cycles are also part of the current climate and have nothing to do with climate change. There is evidence that the climate change that we have been experiencing, as small as it is, is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So there is evidence that climate change for the most part is caused by Mother Nature, an act of God, and you cannot sue over acts of God. All judges that could possible hear this case have benefited form the use of fossil fuels and hence cannot be considered impartial so hence there is no judge qualified to hear this case. If the USA was required to immediately stop the use of fossil fuels for any reason, then a large part of the population would quickly perish including the children involved in this legal action. The use of fossil fuels is currently necessary for the health, welfare, and defense of the USA so the nation is well within its rights to make use of fossil fuels and the fossil fuel companies are well within their rights to supply the fossil fuels that the nation needs for its survival. The possession, sale, and use of fossil fuels in the USA has always been and still is legal.

  4. Hansen of late, has decided nuclear energy is only way.
    So, is US government liable because it didn’t allow more nuclear power plants- I would say US government has
    been preventing further use of nuclear power.
    Also one say US government hasn’t helped the increase use of fracking, which currently is doing a lot to lower US emission.

  5. One day, in the dim distant future, these poor children will be elderly, feeling the cold with stiff joints and weepy eyes. They will appreciate the heat from their coal fire and ask themselves ‘what were we thinking?’. 🙂🍃

    • and ask themselves ‘what were we thinking?’

      Nope. Never going to happen.

      Ask yourself this. If 25 years ago a bunch of Peak Oilers got their children to sue the Government because it wasn’t doing enough to switch us away from gas and diesel before ‘the oil runs out’, do you think that today the would admit they were wrong?

      And if 50 years ago a bunch of Population Bombers did the same because the Government wasn’t imposing limits on how many children you could have, would they look back today and admit that the problem wasn’t anywhere near what they claimed?

      Of course not. These people NEVER admit they were wrong. And they would all claim that, anyway, the new crisis justifies it since somehow every new problem requires the same solutions.

      Mark my words, 25 years from now these ‘kids’ will be the heads of whatever organizations are demanding we give them money and authority so they can save the world from Capitalism and Prosperity.

      ~¿~

    • Agreed. The proper response is to immediately outlaw all fossil fuels NOW. Then let kiddies see if they can sue when they can’t even ride the bus to school or get on to social media. This is about stealing money from an industry, nothing more. (As are most such lawsuits. Harm is fine as long as you can make a lot of money off of it. These kiddies are really fools who apparently want a good grade for going along with idiocy that could cost them their futures.)

    • I’d say as long as they produce CO2, they can have no standing. Hmm, if they stopped producing CO2, they would not be standing.

  6. What would be really cool would be for the Government to reply something like this:

    “As it is not clear how US Society in the 21st Century could function without fossil fuels, or how this Court could operate, or how the US Constitution could be protected without use of such fuels, or how the Plaintiffs themselves could live for more than a couple of months without such fuels, the Government seeks a relevant, practical solution from the Plaintiffs, where they document their lives without the use of fossil fuels or fossil fuel-derived products or services for the length of these proceedings.”

    Quick trial.

    • The obvious counter to that is: While the Plaintiffs agree that energy is necessary for all those functions a sensible program to develop nuclear power, commencing when it was first invented, would now provide all the energy required without needing significant amounts of fossil fuels.

      Granted that makes a lot of assumptions about how far nuclear power could have been developed and how much could be done with synthetic fuels or batteries; but it is hard to conclusively disprove.

  7. If these children had to pay for their lawyers out of their own pockets, there would be no lawsuit. If they could be sued for wasting the time of the courts, there would be no lawsuit. If the lawyers who are bringing this frivolous lawsuit forfeited their legal licence for exploiting naive children and their foolish parents, there would be no lawsuit.

  8. Look folks: This is a nothing burger. The district Judge decided to send this clown show to her bosses — the Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. Where they will monkey around with it for a year or two before kicking it back to her.

    The Ninth Circuit is the court in charge of the western states — Alaska, Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Arizona. During my 45 year legal career, it has always been a very left wing court. It is certainly part of the #Resistance now.

    The Ninth Circus will most likely instruct the district court to allow the clown show to perform. In due course it will. And she will spend a year or two writing an opinion which regurgitates the theology of the cult of warmunism. It will be appealed back to the Ninth Circus for a couple of rounds of hearings, followed by opinions declaiming the horrors of capitalism and the depravity of Donald Trump.

    Thenthe case will be appealed back to the US Supreme Court which will unanimously reverse the Ninth Circus. But, that will be in 5 years.

  9. “Guardians of the planet”? Are these kids even “guardians of their bedrooms” or does mummy clean it up for them?

  10. The “kids” were between 8 and 19 years old when the suit was first filed in 2015; so the youngest is now at least 11 and the oldest could be 23.

    I wonder how old they will be when the case is finally heard or dismissed.

    I also wonder if any of them will learn some science and withdraw from the case.

  11. Can you even imagine what would happen to America had SHE been able to remake the SCOTUS in HER image? The US Constitution and US Law would have been hucked into the rubbish bin … and … the chillllllldren would prevail.

  12. Can the children of Paradise who lost their homes in the recent fire sue Governor Brown for vetoing the unanimous decision of the legislative assembly of California to clear those trees and undergrowth which could fuel devastating fires?
    Are the lawyers of California aware that Governor Brown is a multimillionaire and that the documentary evidence of his fatal decision is a matter of public record?

    • But that very same legislature didn’t overrule Governor Brown’s veto. It’s all for show.

    • I was in Cali last week and there were advertisements all over seeking those suffering a loss to file suit against PG&E.

  13. Hmmm…..by analogy to pre-industrial times…first sue the woodchopper for the smoky air in your city…..then take it a step further and sue the mayor and councillors for not following their promises to clean up the smoky air…..never sue the people burning the firewood, because that is us…..

  14. Every day you look at the news and whether it’s politics or climate change it’s just BS, BS, and more BS. I’ll bet all of you are as tired of it as I am. Time to get out the tar and feathers, pitchforks and torches!

  15. Can you sue to compel “action” (undefined) in order to prevent theoretical damage to the well-being (undefined) of someone yet unborn (unnamed)?

    Were the court to consider the “damage” such “inaction” might cause to people who might but probably will exist in future, they would also have to consider the benefits of such “inaction”, meaning, the government foreseeable and unforeseeable consequences of not attempting to regulate the temperature of the atmosphere of a planet with current technologies. As there is at present no federated system of global governance there is no way to assure compliance with some court’s directive to “manage the Earth’s weather”.

    Further, there is not yet an international court with the standing to issue such an order, nor an International Force adequate to enforce it. It is hard to guilt people into destroying their lives and freezing their children in the dark.

    I suspect that this court case is designed to fail. It is/was planned in advance that it would fail, but achieve its lesser purpose of implanting the idea that “someone” is depriving these children (who are cute) of a healthy planet free of beatings, deprivation, starvation and a gloomy warm future. The whole point is to mimic the 350.org initiative to get tertiary educational institutions to “disinvest from all fossil fuels” as a way of implanting the emotional seeds of revolution against the elite.

    Such shorter term plans are not intended to succeed “in Court”, the plan is to succeed in the court of public opinion, where hopefully the whole population will accept the charade and walk away convinced that they should hand more power to those who will take care of their children on their behalf.

    The key words are “identity” and “oppression” and “compassion” and “equality of outcomes” and “self-identifies as” and “social construct” and “natural” and “unnatural” and “choice” (and a hundred others).

    Everyone could do well by investigating the meaning of “materialism” and the pernicious effect this bizarre form of worship is having on society. This whole thing is not about “saving the children” it is about power – all of it – grabbing it, holding onto it, exercising it and extending it. In the early stages of a power grab there is a need for useful idiots – lots of them – because a lot of people are going to die (again).

    It is amazing that Nietzsche predicted in about 1850 the mass slaughter observed in the 20th Century as ideologues reduced people to things and aspirations to ashes. It wasn’t God they killed, it was hundreds of millions of people. Social Justice Warriors are surprisingly uninterested in justice. They will settle for power (all of it).

  16. Hasn’t anyone told these kids that the US has already reduced CO2 output to something like 1990 levels?

  17. Let’s be clear here on Separation of Powers.
    – The Federal Judiciary has no constitutional authority to order Congress to act.
    – It has no power to order Congress to appropriate money.
    – The courts have no power to order the President to negotiate treaties with foreign powers, nor the power to order the Senate to ratify them.

    Simply put, the Court has no jurisdiction to order the asked for remedies from the Plaintiffs since climate change is a global issue of global CO2 emissions. The only reason this judge has not dismissed this case is simple: The Judge is an activist wanting to Legislate from the bench for Leftist ideology.
    The Defendants clearly “forum shopped” the filing of their complaint where they did to get an activist judge. But the Supreme Court, now with a solid 5 member Conservative majority, will put an end to this charade of judicial activism in the coming years. This is why they fought to dirty in their attempt to stop Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Until Hillary was defeated, the Left was quietly planning on a Liberal Supreme Court majority in order to use judicial activism (legislating from the bench) to achieve what they could not from Congress. Hillary’s defeat was an epic turning point in the country. With Grouch and now Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, the US will be turning away from the Lawless Left — a the Leftist’s ideology intent on making the US constitution a meaningless piece of paper.

    But let’s say this case goes forward since it is the 9th Appellate District. With the Trump-run EPA, for the judge to rule in the plaintiff’s favor, the judge would have to somehow do an end-around on the Chevron Deference Doctrine. The Chevron Deference precedent tells to courts to give the Administrative agencies wide latitude (deference) in writing regulations and carrying out the laws passed by Congress. With a conservative Supreme Court, this would be a disaster for the Liberals. The conservatives have for decades wanted to re-write Chevron deference Doctrine. Kavanaugh in particular was written opinions as an appellate judge stated his opinion that Chevron Deference gives the Executive branch agencies too much latitude.

    The Left could win this case at the Lower Courts since this defendants forum shopped this filing, but then lose majorly bigly at the Supreme Court on appeal.

    • Joel O’Bryan

      It’s a PR stunt. Win or lose, they win.

      It’s a shame those dead from poverty and cold; and those about to die this winter because they have but one choice, heat or eat; don’t have representatives like these children and Mr. Hanson to take their case to court.

      It’s a shame Mr. Hanson cares less about people now than he does about ‘our’ children’s future; which will rest entirely in their hands, as does ours; when he and we are pushing up the daisies.

      Perhaps we could blame our parents and grandparents for our current condition, but that would be difficult to justify because many fought in two world wars (and more) to ensure their children retained the benefit of freedom of choice.

      Thanks to them it’s something these children will carry into their old age. Here’s hoping none of them are left with only one choice at the end of their days, heat or eat.

      • It is not a PR stunt when a Federal Judge allows their courtroom to take a case to trial.
        The Left started this lawsuit back when Obama was still President and they figured Hillary would win and would continue to push the Supreme Court to the Left.

        Obama and his gang of Leftists are no longer running the EPA and Supreme Court now has a solid conservative majority of Justices.

        The real possibility the Left faces is that a favorable ruling from this judge would open the door for the conservatives on the Supreme Court to rewrite the Chevron Deference doctrine. Which I would love to see happen.

        • Joel O’Bryan

          I don’t credit them with your intellect.

          They may well have expected a fait accompli had Hilary become POTUS but even they must realise now their cause is heading for the rocks, if not held in dry dock indefinitely.

          Mr. Hansen could have brought a case like this himself, I’m sure, which renders the use of children who really don’t know much about the climate, the law or life in general is, in my opinion, a publicity stunt.

          However, I don’t understand the intricacies of US courts so defer to your knowledge.

          I will however point out that in my quick research on the Chevron Defence I found this: “Though it has been applied inconsistently across cases, justices had been reluctant to formally indicate any desire to formally abandon the doctrine. However, since 2015, “[i]f one counts King v. Burwell, all nine justices have at least once signed an opinion explicitly holding that Chevron should not apply in a situation where the administrative law textbooks would previously have said that it must apply.” https://ballotpedia.org/Chevron_deference_(doctrine)

          • Mr. Hansen could have brought a case like this himself, I’m sure, which renders the use of children who really don’t know much about the climate, the law or life in general is, in my opinion, a publicity stunt.

            I’d say it’s worse than a publicity stunt, as it amounts to child abuse.

          • HotScot

            “They may well have expected a fait accompli had Hilary become POTUS but even they must realise now their cause is heading for the rocks, if not held in dry dock indefinitely.”

            Yeah, probably, but they also can use the case to whip up emotions and then claim “behind the scenes bias and push” for the loss. The disinvestment push for universities has a hopeless record of achieving anything, but it whips up fanaticism and grievance among the students. It never had a chance of succeeding. Someone is playing a long game. If a few universities divest, they will be hailed as hero-type institutions. If none do, all institutions will be attacked as ‘part of the system’. People learned from Berkeley.

    • I would be nice if there were a law that required plaintiffs and defendants in civil cases to disclose who was paying there legal fees.

  18. This is silly.

    Judges intermit the law.

    Congress makes laws.

    There is a reason why there is separation of powers.

    This is an attempt to make a super law which cannot be reversed? Come on. One judge has that power?

    What does that the super law want our government to do? How much is that going to cost?

    Cost vs benefits does not matter? How much climate change has been stopped?

  19. The whole thing kinda reminds me of previous similar abuses of legal processes such as:

    Hindu gods get summons from court
    “A judge in India has summoned two Hindu gods, Ram and Hanuman, to help resolve a property dispute.

    Judge Sunil Kumar Singh in the eastern state of Jharkhand has issued adverts in newspapers asking the gods to “appear before the court personally”.

    The gods have been asked to appear before the court on Tuesday, after the judge said that letters addressed to them had gone unanswered. “

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7132124.stm
    Presumably the adults eventually turned up in these cases to put an end to the nonsense, but it didn’t merit the same amount of publicity. Still, it would be nice to see either politicians, the judiciary itself, or some wealthy individuals, stepping in to start punishing the people bringing these kind of things before the courts. It is worse than just a waste of public resources. It undermines respect for the law and legal processes generally. I’m not holding my breath, though. People have mourned these losses many times before, and it’s undoubtedly going to get worse before it gets better.

  20. Is there any chance—any chance at all— that this lawsuit will finally establish some quantifiable metrics on what the term “climate change” actually means?

    And if it touches on the subject of “fighting climate change”, I look forward to someone finally establishing (for everyone on this planet) that ideal climate that we wish to prevent from having any further change.

    And finally, I wonder if an Appeals Court or the Supreme Court will be so presumptuous as to issue a finding that global temperature is driven primarily by mankind-originated CO2 released into Earth’s atmosphere.

    A hint for the Appeals and Supreme Courts:
    “If you can’t define something you have no formal rational way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between inability to define and stupidity.” — Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Comments are closed.